All On the Rose Bowl

That whole Texas-and-Oklahoma-to-the-SEC thing was due in part to the fact that the general expectation is that the College Football Playoff will eventually be expanded beyond the current four teams, perhaps to as many as 12.  There wouldn't be automatic qualifiers or a limit on the number of teams from a conference, either, so the SEC was positioning itself to scoop up as many bids as possible.  I've even seen some hypothetical 12-team playoffs that have as much as half the field coming from the SEC.

For most of the summer, people just assumed the expansion was inevitable.  It was just a matter of figuring out the logistics.  Would the first round games be on campus?  Or would it entirely take place using existing bowls?  And, if there are AQs, which conferences get one?  The Power 5 plus the best Group of 5 champion, with six at-larges?

Except all of those plans have hit a pretty major snag.  The Rose Bowl.  And if they can't get the Rose Bowl's buy-in, it'll complicate any CFP expansion plans.  Because it would be nearly impossible to do it without the Rose Bowl.  Both practically and logistically.

The Rose Bowl is known as the "Granddaddy of Them All" for a reason, and it's pretty protective of some of its traditions.  Two traditions in particular--the Big Ten vs. Pac-12 matchup and the 2:00 Pacific time kickoff.  And they don't seem willing to budge on either one just to accommodate an expanded College Football Playoff.

Now, scheduling around the kickoff time is actually fairly easy.  They've already been scheduling the CFP semifinals around it for years.  The Rose Bowl is played at 2:00 Pacific on New Year's Day whether it's a semifinal or not.  Likewise, the Sugar Bowl is played at 7:30 Central on New Year's Day whether it's a semifinal or not.  So, those two are paired and they're the two semifinals or, in the two years they aren't, the semifinals are played on the Saturday before.  Either way, their start time is the same each season.

Scheduling around the Rose Bowl's start time probably wouldn't be much of an issue in the expanded format, either.  Depending on how they set it up, they could simply make the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl the permanent semifinals.  Although, that would make the other four bowls that are currently in the CFP semifinal rotation relegated to permanent quarterfinals (and held a week earlier than they are now), so I'm sure they wouldn't be too happy about it.

However, the Rose Bowl doesn't seem willing to budge on its traditional Big Ten vs. Pac-12 matchup, which would create all sorts of problems.  I know what you're thinking: "The Rose Bowl isn't always Pac-12 vs. Big Ten."  That's true.  The most recent Rose Bowl, for example, was Alabama vs. Notre Dame.  That, however, was a CFP semifinal. 

When the Rose Bowl is a CFP semifinal, the matchup is determined by the CFP rankings, so they have no control over who plays in the game.  (In fact, the Rose Bowl hasn't featured a Big Ten OR Pac-12 team the last two times it's been a semifinal.)  In the years that it's not a part of the College Football Playoff, however, the Rose Bowl reverts to the traditional matchup (with a few exceptions), sometimes even taking the second-place team just to preserve it.  That's a trade-off they're willing to make since it lets them both keep their traditional matchup and be part of the playoff.

It wouldn't be possible to guarantee either of those things if the Rose Bowl were to be a part of an expanded CFP, though.  The matchups would presumably be seeded, and it's unlikely that two Power 5 conference champions would end up facing each other in that scenario.  Likewise, if the Rose Bowl was made a permanent semifinal to preserve its date and time, you'd have no idea who's playing in the game that year.  It might not be either conference.

Even before the Rose Bowl hiccup, I was wondering how the proposed 12-team format would work anyway.  For the National Championship Game to be at its usual time (the Monday night after the NFL season ends), the semifinals would also have to remain when they currently are (either New Year's Day or the weekend before).  So, the quarterfinals would have to be a week before that, which means Christmas week.  And that would put the first-round games in mid-December, which is finals. 

Likewise, are they really serious about having first-round games on campus?  That's fine for the SEC teams, but can you imagine a playoff game at Ohio State or Notre Dame in December?  I know it would be a tremendous home field advantage, which is the entire point, but you're also taking a tremendous risk with the weather there.

Qualifying is another question.  Right now, with four teams, you're guaranteed to have one Power 5 conference champion left out.  I like the idea of giving an auto bid to each of the five, as well as the best conference champion from the Group of 5.  But, if you do that and only expand to eight teams, that only leaves two at-large bids.  If you go to 12, that's six auto-bids and six at-larges.  So it works in that sense, but then you have byes to worry about.

Personally, I think expanding to eight makes much more sense than expanding to 12.  It's less drastic, much cleaner, and only adds one additional round.  Plus, you could just make the other four New Year's Six games the quarterfinals every year, so they'd keep their same level of importance.

I'm not sure any of it's actually gonna happen, though.  Not if the Rose Bowl doesn't get on board.  And right now, that doesn't seem likely.  So it might all be for naught and idea of College Football Playoff expansion will remain just that.  An idea.

Trout, Ohtani, and Still No Playoffs

Mike Trout is arguably the best player in baseball.  He has been for years.  Shohei Ohtani is the biggest phenomenon in baseball, doing incredible things that we've never seen before and are likely to never see again.  They both play for the same team.  That team is in a major market.  Yet that team is not good.

It really is incredible if you think about it. Trout's first full season was 2012.  In those nine seasons (not including this year), he's finished in the top-two in MVP voting seven times (and in 2017, the Altuve/Judge year, he was third).  However, despite having the best player in the game in his prime, the Angels have made the playoffs a grand total of once in Trout's career...in 2014, when they were swept in the Division Series by the Royals!

While there have been times when Trout's been forced to be a one-man band, it's not like the Angels haven't tried to be good.  They play in a major market and aren't afraid to spend.  It's just that a lot of their free agent signings haven't worked, whether it be Albert Pujols or Josh Hamilton or Anthony Rendon or Justin Upton.

When they ended up winning the Ohtani Sweepstakes, it looked like things may finally turn around.  He was one of the biggest curiosities in baseball history, and every team wanted in on the phenomenon.  A guy who can hit and pitch!  And do them both well!  And he chose to come to the Angels!  He and Trout together should be unstoppable, right?  Right?!

I, for one, was skeptical about whether the Ohtani thing will work long-term or not.  I still am.  But this season, they've gotten everything they could've hoped for when they signed him and then some.  Trout hasn't played since May, yet an Angel is STILL likely to win AL MVP.

Ohtani did his thing again on Sunday, striking out 10 and not walking anybody while giving up just one run over seven innings.  It was 1-1 when he came out, only for the bullpen to give up a four-spot in the eighth in another Angels loss.  That dropped them to 74-82, guaranteeing their sixth consecutive losing season.  As if that wasn't bad enough, though, it's what Ohtani said after the game that should really have Angels fans concerned.

He was asked if he wants to stay with the Angels long-term and was noncommittal.  All Ohtani, who isn't eligible for free agency until after the 2023 season, would say was that he "really likes the team" and that he "loves the fans" and "loves the atmosphere of team."  But he made it a point of ending his statement with: "I want to win.  That's the biggest thing for me.  I'll leave it at that."

Sounds like Ohtani isn't too happy.  Neither is Trout.  So, that's both of the Angels' star players who are frustrated with their continued lack of success.  You can add manager Joe Maddon to that list, too.  Here's what Maddon said before Wednesday's game: "This can't continue to go on.  We can't annually be in this position.  This organization is better than that."

Are they, though?  The Angels have had no problem attracting free agent hitters to join Trout and Ohtani.  The problem is most of those hitters haven't worked out.  And they're paying those guys a lot of money.  So, they've got a massive amount of salary tied up in just a handful of players (who are unproductive), which really limits them when constructing the rest of the roster.  And the rest of the roster needs a lot of work!

The Angels' problem this entire time has been pitching.  Specifically starting pitching.  Everyone knows this, including the Angels.  They just haven't been able to do anything about it!  That hasn't stopped them from trying, but every time they go after a big name starter, he signs somewhere else and they're left looking for a Plan B.  (Ohtani, of course, technically counts as a starting pitcher, but he's his own category.)

Jered Weaver is probably the last pitcher the Angels had who can be considered an "ace."  He hasn't pitched for the team since 2016!  C.J. Wilson was the last big-time starting pitcher they signed as a free agent.  That was in 2012.  Wilson retired after the 2015 season.

Maybe they should start there.  There are so many front-line starting pitchers who'll become free agents after this season.  Their chances of landing a Scherzer seem pretty slim, and the thought of Kershaw wearing anything other than Dodger blue is something my mind can't even process!  But someone like Zack Greinke?  I can definitely see that!  Or, they could always trade one of their 35 young outfielders for a starter.

Their bullpen isn't exactly stellar either, but it's in nowhere near as bad shape as their rotation.  They have a solid closer to build around in Raisel Iglesias, and there are so many free agent relievers available that they should be able to find somebody.  You'd have to figure they'll be able to get a reliever pretty cheap, too.

They're also in desperate need of a shortstop.  They haven't had a worthwhile one since Andrelton Simmons, who just happens to be a part of the 2021-22 free agent class.  So are Javy Baez, Carlos Correa, Corey Seager and Trevor Story.  Yes, that's another high-priced position player.  But, if they actually do it smart and don't just throw the most amount of money at the biggest name they can think of, they'll still have the money for a starting pitcher, too.  Maybe someone like Noah Syndergaard.

Regardless, it looks like some major changes are coming in Anaheim.  Because the Angels being this bad for this long while having two of the best players in the game simply doesn't make sense.  You can't blame it all on the Astros, either.  Sure, they play in the same division as Houston, but they should at least be in the wild card mix, and they don't even do that!

So, this offseason will be a critical one for the Angels.  Trout isn't going anywhere.  He's signed thru 2030.  But if Ohtani really is this, he might be on the move the first chance he gets.  Which means they'd only have two more years of both Trout and Ohtani  together.  And Maddon's right.  Their fans deserve more than just getting to see those two great players in their prime.  They deserve the chance to see a winning team.

Picking Football Games, Week 3

So...it turns out I was right about last week.  A week that's full of it-could-go-either-way matchups is likely gonna lead to going somewhere around .500, which is exactly what happened.  Although, really, who saw Panthers-Saints and Titans-Seahawks coming?!  Fortunately, this week seems to be a little more straightforward.  There are some tossups, but, for the most part, the favorites this week are pretty clear.

Thursday Night: Carolina (Win)

Washington (1-1) at Bills (1-1): Buffalo-That's more like it.  The Bills had an uncharacteristically bad game offensively in Week 1.  In Week 2, they were solid on both sides of the ball in their shutout of Miami.  Washington, meanwhile, was the beneficiary of the Giants' choke job.  They have a crazy schedule, too, by the way.  They played the Giants last week, but don't play another division game until December.  They play 10 straight outside the division before playing their final five against the Cowboys, Eagles and Giants.  It's basically an NFC South schedule.

Bears (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Cleveland-Both of these teams won last week after Week 1 losses.  Was either incredibly impressive, though?  The Bears played the Bengals and only won by a field goal, while the Browns played a Texans team that we all saw on Thursday night.  Frankly, I think they both played better games in Week 1.  So they've both still got a lot to prove.  This one will be close, but since it's in Cleveland, I'm going Browns.

Ravens (1-1) at Lions (0-2): Baltimore-Last week's win was so huge for the Ravens.  Not only did it mean they wouldn't start the season 0-2, it, more importantly, gave them the confidence that they can beat good teams.  The Lions, however, are NOT a good team!  So Baltimore shouldn't have much of an issue with them.  Although, if they play like they did in the first half against the Packers, this has potential to be a close one.

Colts (0-2) at Titans (1-1): Tennessee-Carson Wentz will start for the Colts, but how effective will he be on that injured ankle?  Even if he was 100 percent, would it matter?  Not when they're playing a Titans team that rebounded nicely after getting thumped by the Cardinals and then some.  No one saw that comeback in Seattle coming, and it's gotta give them a whole slew of confidence heading into a stretch of three games they should win.  They have the chance to create some real separation in the AFC South.

Chargers (1-1) at Chiefs (1-1): Kansas City-Suddenly, this game has a lot of meeting.  The Chiefs and Chargers are still probably the two best teams in the AFC West, but one of them will be in last place after they both suffered tough losses last week.  Although, it must be noted, they both lost to pretty good teams.  While I think Kansas City is more capable of bouncing back from 1-2, the Chiefs rebounding and getting to 2-1 seems more likely.

Saints (1-1) at Patriots (1-1): New Orleans-I'm gonna blame last week on the Saints being without so many of their coaches.  Some of them are still on the COVID list, but enough are back for New Orleans to resemble the team they're supposed to be.  So I'm expecting this to be a bounce back week for the Saints.  I'm also curious to see how New England plays in its home opener after starting the season with two division road games.

Falcons (0-2) at Giants (0-2): Giants-The Giants have become masters at finding ways to lose games they've already won.  How else do you explain last week, which is really just a microcosm of the past few seasons?  Of course, you could say the same thing about the Falcons, who've been a mess since they blew the Super Bowl five years ago.  They'll be the one that's 0-3 after this matchup.  That is, if the Giants don't find a way to blow it again.
  
Bengals (1-1) at Steelers (1-1): Pittsburgh-Will the real Pittsburgh Steelers please stand up?  Do we even know who the real Steelers are?  Is it the team that won in Buffalo or the one that lost at home to the Raiders?  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  At least this week we'll get to see what their defense is like without T.J. Watt.  I'm also curious to see what Cincinnati does after playing two games that were decided by a field goal to open the season.

Cardinals (2-0) at Jaguars (0-2): Arizona-Has any offense been more impressive over the first two weeks than Arizona's?  I'm sure they'll have a bad game at some point, but it won't be this week.  Not against the Jaguars.  Another 30-point effort seems much more likely.  Arizona will move to 3-0, while Jacksonville will fall to 0-3.

Jets (0-2) at Broncos (2-0): Denver-Denver's 2-0 with a pair of road wins to start the season.  Sure, they played the Giants and Jaguars, but still.  They and the Raiders are the only undefeated teams in the AFC, and the Broncos should be able to make that 3-0 against another bottom-tier opponent in the Jets.  Things will get a lot more challenging with the Ravens, Steelers, Raiders and Browns coming up after this.  So they can't afford a letdown against a Jets team they should beat.

Dolphins (1-1) at Raiders (2-0): Las Vegas-How's Miami gonna play without Tua?  It wasn't very good last week, when the Dolphins were shut out at home by the Bills.  The Raiders, meanwhile, followed up their impressive win over the Ravens with a perhaps even more impressive victory in Pittsburgh.  Dare I say Las Vegas is for real?!

Buccaneers (2-0) at Rams (2-0): Rams-This is perhaps the best game of the week.  And it'll get people to stop talking about whether the Bucs will go undefeated or not.  Because they're not going to.  Tampa Bay's offense has been firing on all cylinders, especially last week, but neither the Cowboys nor the Falcons is as good defensively as the Rams.  The Rams have the offense to hag with them, too.  Which is why I think they'll win.

Seahawks (1-1) at Vikings (0-2): Seattle-What exactly happened last week?  The Seahawks somehow managed to blow that game against the Titans and lost in overtime!  As a result, they're the last-place team in the NFC West.  So they're gonna need to go into Minnesota and take care of business.  The Vikings aren't as bad as their record indicates, but they aren't as good as the Seahawks either.

Packers (1-1) at 49ers (2-0): Green Bay-Aaron Rodgers looked like himself last week after looking like anything but in Week 1.  Now he returns to his hometown for potentially the final time as Packers quarterback.  San Francisco began the season with two very different road wins.  They beat the Lions in a shootout, then won a low-scoring affair in Philadelphia.  What kind of game do the 49ers have in store for us on Sunday night?

Eagles (1-1) at Cowboys (1-1): Dallas-They may be 1-1, but the Cowboys have put forward two very solid efforts to start the season.  Things could've gone either way on Opening Night, and they played a great game against the Chargers.  As I've said all along, a healthy Cowboys team is far and away the best in the NFC East.  And Dallas is well on its way to becoming healthy.  Which means look out as they begin a three-game homestand!

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 20-13

Ditch the Single-Eliminaton Playoff Games

The WNBA Playoffs got started yesterday with a pair of thrilling games.  Games that resulted in the elimination of the New York Liberty and Dallas Wings.  There are two more single-elimination games coming up before the best-of-five semifinals and WNBA Finals.

This has been the WNBA's playoff format since 2016, when they ditched conference designations and simply had the top eight teams qualify for the playoffs.  That was done, in part, because the Western Conference was far better at the time, so the good Western Conference teams knocked each other out before the survivor took on a weaker Eastern Conference opponent in the WNBA Finals.  And the change did exactly what it was intended to do.  The Minnesota Lynx and Los Angeles Sparks played each other in the first two WNBA Finals under the new format, with both going five games.

Under the current format, the top two seeds receive a double-bye into the semifinals, while the 3 and 4 seeds host the second set of single-elimination games against the winners of the 5-8 and 6-7 matchups.  So it's a huge advantage for the 1 and 2 seeds.  But is it fair to everybody else?  Imagine finishing tied for the second-best record in the league, but ending up as the 3-seed because of a tiebreaker...and ending up in the single-elimination round as a result!

While they're what make the NCAA Tournament so great, the multiple single-elimination games seem especially cruel in a professional league.  Especially when six of the eight playoff teams would need to win at least one (and four of them would need to win two) just to make it to the point where the "playoffs" actually start.  Some reward for making the playoffs, only to have them end in 40 minutes!

WNBA coaches and players seem to be in agreement that the one-and-done playoff games have run their course and it's time for them to go.  They'd prefer to have every round be a series.  While anybody can beat anybody in a single game, the better team is much more likely to prevail in a series.  And isn't that the entire point?

And, with the WNBA's CBA set to expire after this season, it seems like the two single-elimination playoff rounds will be eliminated moving forward.  The question is what they'll replace them with, although you'd figure a best-of-three series would make the most sense.

Is 3-5-5 the best format?  I don't know!  But it's certainly preferable to the current format, where the top two seeds only have to win six games to win the championship.  Ideally, the WNBA Finals would be best-of-seven, but one thing at a time.  And having three best-of-five rounds is too much of a jump from single elimination.  Which is why a best-of-three quarterfinal round is the perfect compromise.

There's some concern in WNBA circles about how a best-of-three series would be structured, mainly regarding the travel.  In the past, when they had a best-of-three, it was 1-1-1, which means you're traveling after every game.  But a 1-2 format means that the higher-seeded team is starting the series on the road.  There are pros and cons to both.  But, frankly, either is preferable to a single game.

I'm not suggesting they go back to the old format, though.  There are only 12 teams in the WNBA, so there's really no need to seed the playoffs by conference...especially since the "West" is still significantly stronger (five of the eight playoff teams were from the West, and the eighth-seeded Liberty got in with a 12-20 record).  So, I propose you continue seeding the teams 1-8, with four best-of-three quarterfinal series.

Going to a three-game series wouldn't add that much time to the playoff schedule, either, since the single-elimination games are played as doubleheaders and those two rounds are both done in one day.  More importantly, however, it would add at least four and as many as eight more playoff games....and eight teams would have the opportunity to host playoff games.  That's more revenue from both ticket sales and TV.

If the travel thing is such a concern, they could have the higher-seeded team host all three games, but I'd propose using the 1-2 model.  That way everybody gets a home game but the travel is still reduced.  (They could even schedule Games 2 & 3 back-to-back if that works better for TV.)  Then, just in case there's an upset, I'd reseed the teams for the best-of-five semifinals.

Or, if having the top two-seeds keep their first-round byes is important, they could still do that and have two best-of-three first round series instead of four.  Of course, that would mean reducing the number of playoff teams from eight to six, which makes it highly unlikely.

Then there's a third alternative.  The WNBA has the Commissioner's Cup now, which is a standalone regular season tournament.  The winner of that is likely going to be a playoff team anyway, but maybe winning the Commissioner's Cup gets you an automatic berth just in case.  Consider it like the Champions League.  The defending champion gets an automatic spot, but, if they qualify through their domestic league, that defending champion spot doesn't get used.  Same thing here.  If the Commissioner's Cup winner is among the top eight, there's no difference.  If they're not, it's the top seven and the Commissioner's Cup winner.

What's ironic here is that the WNBA's single-elimination games were part of the inspiration for the NBA play-in tournament.  I didn't think I'd like the play-in tournament, but it actually wasn't nearly as bad as I thought.  That could be an option for the WNBA, too.  If there's a tie for the last playoff spot (as happened this season), instead of using tiebreakers, they play a win-and-in elimination game.  So it wouldn't completely be the end of the single-elimination games.

Of course, the WNBA isn't the only league that currently has single-elimination playoff games.  It's all single-elimination in the NFL, while the NBA has the play-in tournament and MLB has had the single-elimination Wild Card Games for a decade now.  But even MLB may be shifting away from it.  Last year's eight-team playoff format was because of the shortened season, but I also think it was a test-run for going to a best-of-three Wild Card Series.

It's funny how I like the single-elimination Wild Card Game in MLB, but I think it's time for the WNBA to ditch the single-elimination playoff rounds, even though the MLB season is nearly four times as long as the WNBA season.  That's entirely the point, though.  In baseball, you have 162 games to prove yourself.  In the WNBA, you only have 36.  When you're only playing 36 regular season games, you don't have much margin for error.  Especially when your first playoff game might be do-or-die and could end up being your only one!

Time For a Salary Floor

Major League Baseball's CBA expires in December, and the negotiations figure to drag on for much of the fall and winter.  The relationship between the players and owners isn't nearly as toxic as it was in the 80s and 90s, but it's still pretty bad.  So, while I don't think there will be a work stoppage that actually affects the season, I do think there's plenty of stuff the sides will need to hash out over the coming months. 

One of those things that needs to be discussed is a salary floor.  The owners have included it in their first proposal, and frankly, it's about damn time!  Because a salary floor is long overdue!

Despite being the only major professional sport without a salary cap, MLB has managed to avoid a work stoppage since the 1994-95 strike (while each of the three salary cap leagues has!).  One of the reasons for that is precisely because they don't have a salary cap.  Instead there's the luxury tax.

The luxury tax is designed to prevent more affluent, large market teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs from simply outspending everybody else.  It's not that simple, of course, but that's the basic idea.  Every team is allowed to spend as much as they want on payroll, but if they go over the luxury tax threshold (this season it's $210 million), a percentage of their payroll is taxed and redistributed to everybody else.  The more they exceed the luxury tax, the higher their bill.

This system has actually worked pretty well at the top.  The Dodgers currently don't care at all about the luxury tax.  They're willing to pay whatever they end up owing.  But that's the exception.  We've also seen plenty of examples where the other teams who hover near the luxury tax every year (the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox) have deliberately attempted to keep their payroll below the luxury tax threshold, even if that meant not going after top free agents.  And as a result, those free agents ended up signing elsewhere.

However, the flaw in the current system has also been exposed and exploited over and over again.  Because, while teams being allowed to spend as much as they want on salary means there's no maximum payroll, it also means there's no minimum.  They can have 26 guys making the Major League minimum if they way.  And there's nothing to stop them from doing that!

These teams receive luxury tax money, but aren't required to use it on salaries, so they don't.  Instead, they pocket it.  We've seen plenty of teams (the Orioles, Marlins, Royals and Pirates among them) take the money they receive from other teams because of the luxury tax and keep it, while making no effort to be competitive themselves.  And it's only gotten worse!

There are still two weeks left in the season and there are already two 100-loss teams.  There could be as many as four!  There were also four 100-loss teams in 2019.  And three in 2018.  The number of 100-win teams in those same seasons?  Three in 2018, four in 2019, looking at just the Giants and Dodgers this year.  So, in other words, there have been essentially the same number of 100-win and 100-loss teams in each of the last three full seasons (2020 obviously doesn't count, but the Dodgers easily would've surpassed 100 wins after going 43-17 in the 60-game season).

Of course, the tanking strategy only became en vogue because the Royals, Cubs and Astros all used it successfully.  They all voluntarily sucked for a few years before winning the World Series with a homegrown core that they built using all of the high draft picks they received during that time.  Imitation is the highest form of flattery, especially in baseball, so other teams are using the "if they can do it, why can't we?" approach.

How is that fair to the fans of these teams, though?  The team is flat out telling them that they don't care about winning.  Likewise, how is it fair to the teams that are lining these teams' pockets with their luxury tax dollars (that they willingly spend while actually trying to win the World Series)?

Tanking has become a major problem in the game, and it's great to see the owners wanting to address it.  And the salary floor is an obvious way to do that.  It would force teams to actually invest in their payroll and at least make an attempt to field a competitive Major League team.  They can no longer just take their money from the luxury tax and do nothing with it.  They have to spend it on Major League talent, which wouldn't just eliminate tanking.  It would level the playing field, too.

Think about it.  Every team is required to spend at least $100 million on salaries (the amount of the salary floor in the owners' first proposal).  That makes more of them players for free agents in the winter.  They might even try to keep their own pending free agents instead of just resigning themselves to the fact that they'll have no chance of re-signing them.

It's not like $100 million is a crazy amount, either.  Eighteen teams have higher payrolls than that this season, and the Brewers ($97 million) and Rangers ($95 million) are both close.  However, there are also four teams (the Marlins, Pirates, Orioles and Indians/Guardians) spending under $60 million.  Not surprisingly, those four were all eliminated from playoff contention weeks ago.

Of course, it would be tough to enforce a $100 million minimum every day throughout the season, but there's really a simple way to make sure teams maintain that average.  If they don't meet the salary floor, they don't get their percentage of the luxury tax payments.  Knowing that would be the punishment would be plenty of incentive for teams to make sure they meet or exceed the salary floor.

As a tradeoff, the owners have also proposed lowering the luxury tax threshold.  The number they threw out there is $180 million.  That would put seven teams (the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Astros, Red Sox, Phillies and Angels) over the threshold, as opposed to just one (the Dodgers).  Which means those teams would either have to shed some salary or pay the luxury tax, which would then be disbursed throughout the league.

What it would essentially do is put pretty much everybody in the same $180-100 million range.  Teams like the Dodgers and Yankees would still be willing to pay the luxury tax, but, for the most part, everyone would stay close to that middle range.  Which would make baseball more competitive across the board and, more importantly, go a long way towards preventing tanking.  Truly a win-win for everybody.

Picking Football Games, Week 2

Wow, the Giants sure know how to turn wins into losses!  It really is kinda impressive how they keep finding different ways to blow last-second leads.  That's also what makes them so frustrating to watch.  Because how many games have they lost like that in the past five seasons?

Anyway, I obviously got my Thursday night pick wrong.  I didn't have a great Week 1, either.  A respectable 10-6, but my record definitely would've been better if not for the finishes of the Raider and Bengal games.

This week seems pretty straightforward.  Virtually every game has a clear favorite.  But those also tend to be the weeks where we see some upsets.  Especially this early in the season, when we still don't really who's good and who isn't yet.

Thursday Night: Giants (Loss)

Bengals (1-0) at Bears (0-1): Chicago-Good news Bears fans, you're tied for first place!  How crazy is it that the entire NFC North lost last week?  One of those losses was to the Bengals, who became the first team in NFL history to tie the game with 0:00 left in regulation, then win it with 0:00 left in overtime.  Fortunately they made that field goal and we didn't get stuck with a Week 1 tie!  They've actually got a decent chance to make it 2-for-2 against the NFC North, but I think the Bears will pull it off in their home opener.

Texans (1-0) at Browns (0-1): Cleveland-I couldn't believe that stat they showed about the Browns last week.  They've only started the season 1-0 once since they rejoined the league in 1999!  Then I started to think about it and it made a little more sense.  They weren't good for a long time, and now that they are, they keep getting scheduled against other good teams so that there's a good TV matchup.  So, in a way, it does make sense.  And the likelihood of them falling to 0-2 doesn't seem very high against a Texans team they're better than.

Rams (1-0) at Colts (0-1): Rams-Matthew Stafford gets his first road test as Rams quarterback after leading them to a win in his team debut.  Which is something Carson Wentz couldn't do in his Colts debut.  Getting back-to-back home games to start the season should make you feel good about your schedule...but not when they're both against two of the better teams in the NFC.  Indy will end up dropping both.

Bills (0-1) at Dolphins (1-0): Buffalo-For some reason, Miami is New England's kryptonite.  Throughout the Patriots' 20-year run of dominance, the Dolphins were the one team that always played them close.  And, they were the only AFC East team to win last week, so they're in sole possession of first place right now!  It won't last for long, though.  Because the Bills will win this one.

Patriots (0-1) at Jets (0-1): New England-They usually play this one at the end of the season, so it's weird to see the Patriots as the opponent for the Jets' home opener.  It's even weirder to see New England with an 0-1 record after Week 1.  They actually didn't look horrible last week, though.  Whereas the Jets...well, they're the Jets.  New England gets its first victory of the year.

49ers (1-0) at Eagles (1-0): Philadelphia-Both of these teams put up a lot of points in Week 1.  Was it a sign that they have really good offenses or that they were playing opponents with really bad defenses?  I guess we'll find out this week.  Although, San Francisco suffered a bunch of injuries against the Lions, which I think will make a difference.  It's also their second straight 1:00 kickoff, which always seems to come into play for West Coast teams.

Raiders (1-0) at Steelers (1-0): Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh and Las Vegas had two of the more impressive Week 1 wins.  The Steelers went into Buffalo and really had their way with the Bills in the second half, while that Raiders comeback was really something else!  But now they have to travel to the Eastern time zone for an early game, which wouldn't be an easy task if they weren't coming off a short(er) week.  So I'm going with the Steelers in their home opener.

Saints (1-0) at Panthers (1-0): New Orleans-Was last week's dominant win over the Packers because of the New Orleans offense or the Green Bay defense?  Or both?  I guess we'll get some answers this week, as they take on a Panthers team that had no trouble with the Jets.  The Saints are not the Jets, however.  Things will be much more difficult this week for Sam Darnold and Co.

Broncos (1-0) at Jaguars (0-1): Denver-Trevor Lawrence wasn't actually that bad in his NFL debut.  Sure, he threw three interceptions, but he wasn't the reason the Jaguars lost.  They lost because they're the Jaguars.  The Broncos, meanwhile, were in control the entire time against the Giants.  And they've got a really good opportunity here to start the season with two wins before facing the Jets in their home opener.  Denver could easily be 3-0 when Baltimore comes to town in Week 4.

Vikings (0-1) at Cardinals (1-0): Arizona-If you can make a statement in Week 1, that's exactly what the Cardinals did against the Titans.  That win could end up proving to be important down the line, especially with how competitive the NFC West figures to be.  As for the Vikings, things could be worse.  That loss to the Bengals was tough, but they're technically in first place since the other three NFC North teams played other NFC teams.  They'll no longer technically be in first place after they fall to 0-2.

Cowboys (0-1) at Chargers (1-0): Chargers-Tough schedule for Dallas.  They start with the season-opening game on one end of the country, then have to go to the complete opposite side for their Week 2 contest.  They'll be rewarded after this with three straight home games, but you know they'd like to get this one so they can start that stretch at 1-1.  Unfortunately, I don't see it happening.  Not with the Chargers finally getting to play in front of their own fans for the first time since they were still in San Diego.  The Cowboys will obviously travel well.  They always do.  But it's nice to see the Chargers finally able to have an actual home field advantage again.

Titans (0-1) at Seahawks (1-0): Seattle-The Seahawks are one of the best teams in the NFL.  There.  I said it.  And Russell Wilson is one of the best QBs in the league.  And now, they get to play in front of the 12th Man for the first time in two years.  Tough sailing for the Titans, who had all kinds of issues with the Cardinals last week and should have plenty more against Seattle.

Chiefs (1-0) at Ravens (0-1): Kansas City-Last year, they put this game on Monday night in Week 3 and the Chiefs came away with a 34-20 victory.  This time, they meet on Sunday night in Week 2, and Baltimore's really hungry for a win after that overtime loss to the Raiders.  The Chiefs typically shine in the national spotlight, though, which I expect them to do again here.  Baltimore will keep it close, but Kansas City is too strong.

Lions (0-1) at Packers (0-1): Green Bay-It's been a week, and I'm still in shock over how bad the Packers were last week.  I'm not shocked they lost to the Saints.  I am shocked about how they were so thoroughly dominated in a 38-3 rout.  They'll get a chance to rebound against a Lions team that gave up 41 points to San Francisco.  So, neither defense was exactly stellar in Week 1.  Which QB will have the better bounce back game?  Rodgers or Goff?  I'm saying Rodgers.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 10-7 

Another Dumb Soccer Idea

It's been a few months since the Super League debacle, so soccer's Powers-That-Be decided it was time to make another stupid announcement that only proves how greedy they are.  This time it was FIFA, which is "exploring" the idea of holding the World Cup every two years instead of every four.  Some countries apparently support this idea.  All of UEFA doesn't.  Because it's dumb.  Very, very dumb.

To be clear, it seems FIFA is only entertaining this idea because Saudi Arabia's all for it, and they don't want to piss off Saudi Arabia.  But there's nothing about the idea of an annual World Cup (with men's in even years and women's in odd) that makes any sense or would add any value.  In fact, it would result in just the opposite.  World Cup fatigue.

There are so many reasons why it would never work logistically either.  Let's start with the most obvious one--you need a host.  And that host needs to be able to afford hosting the tournament.  After next year's edition, the World Cup is expanding to 48 teams.  The number of countries that can handle that financially is limited to begin with.  Now you're asking those countries to host the World Cup twice as often?

And what about qualifying?  There are 200-something countries that are a part of FIFA.  Qualification for next year's World Cup started in June 2019.  Yes, that's a long time.  But it gives every nation a chance to qualify, as unrealistic as that may be for many.  I'm not sure if there's even a way to cram all of those qualifying matches into what would basically have to be an 18-month window while still giving everyone a fair chance.

Not to mention the fact that all of these countries would still have their continental tournaments, as well.  They'd need to qualify for and play in those, too.  And, according to this proposed new calendar, the continental tournaments would also be every two years in the odd year, meaning players would have no time off at all!

That's a point the organization representing the players was sure to make.  They want them to play a month-long international tournament every summer?  While also fulfilling their other National Team duties, and playing a full club and Champions League (or equivalent competition) season?  With essentially no break!  Are they trying to kill these guys?!

UEFA's opposition is based more on how much it would dilute the product.  They're very much in the "less is more" camp.  European teams already have a major competition every other year, with the Euro and World Cup alternating.  They think having one or the other every year isn't just overkill, it would dilute both products.  So, would it even be worth it then?

Another concern with the biennial World Cup is a major one that can't be ignored.  When the first World Cup was scheduled, they deliberately put it in the even year between Olympics.  That, frankly, has helped the World Cup become the second-biggest sporting event in the world.  It's held in the same year as the Winter Olympics, but it's played in the summer, so there's no conflict.

Moving it to a biennial schedule, however, would put the World Cup and Olympics up against each other head-to-head in Olympic years.  And, even if they scheduled around each other, it would still be quite a burden for broadcasters to be covering two major events within weeks of each other.  Would sponsors be willing to fork over the advertising dollars for both marquee events in the same summer?  (And would there be as much value in the World Cup if it was every two years instead of every four?)

Needless to say, if FIFA were to do this, the IOC would not be very happy.  The men's Olympic tournament is a U-23 event that a lot of observers don't take seriously, but that doesn't matter to the IOC.  Especially since FIFA would be deliberately scheduling its marquee tournament in the same summer as the Olympics, something that, while not expressly forbidden, is strongly discouraged.  For obvious reasons.

I haven't even mentioned what this would mean for the Women's World Cup yet.  (Considering the idea originally came from Saudi Arabia, I'm fairly certain they don't actually care about the implications on the Women's World Cup.)  But, having a major men's tournament every year would render the Women's World Cup irrelevant in a lot of people's minds.  And that's definitely not something FIFA wants.

With the current schedule, the Women's World Cup is held a year after the men's, when there's no other major international soccer tournament scheduled.  That gives the women the stage all to themselves.  These women deserve that stage, and they put on quite a show, too.  The last two Women's World Cups have been incredible!

The 2023 Women's World Cup figures to be just as incredible.  It'll also be the first to feature 32 teams.  More importantly, it'll feature twice as much prize money.  FIFA expanded the tournament for a number of reasons, which included showing its commitment to the growth of the women's game internationally.  How would it look, then, to relegate the Women's World Cup to a secondary event?

Playing the men's World Cup in every even year would also mean playing the Women's World Cup in every odd year.  But, the Euro, Copa America and all the other men's continental tournaments would also move to every odd year.  And those tournaments wouldn't just be played in the same summer as the Women's World Cup.  They'd be played literally at the same time.  Which tournament are fans more likely to follow?  (I'll give you a hint, it's not the Women's World Cup.)

Frankly, I can't think of any reasons to play the World Cup every other year that I'd actually consider good.  There are plenty of reasons why it's a bad idea, though.  Hopefully the higher-ups at FIFA realize that and the idea of a biennial World Cup goes the way of the Super League.

Almost immediately, people saw the Super League for what it was.  A money grab.  That's all this is, too.  A very obvious one at that.  And, just like the Super League, it's not a very smart one, either.

Now It's the American's Turn

I'm glad BYU finally listened to me and joined the Big 12!  I've only been saying it should happen for how many years?!  I'm also happy for Cincinnati, which finally got into a Power 5 league.  And for Houston being reunited with its former Southwest Conference rivals.  Central Florida also made sense when you consider the size of the Orlando media market and the school's enrollment and endowment.

So, I think the Big 12 really hit a home run with its four additions.  Do they make up for the loss of marquee programs Texas and Oklahoma?  Of course not!  But those were far and away the four best programs they could've added, and I think they'll all fit in pretty well.  Most importantly, they keep the Big 12 relevant in football while also making it even more of a beast in basketball.

Big 12 basketball was already arguably the best in the country.  Baylor's the defending National Champions, Houston made the Final Four, and Kansas is Kansas.  Then you throw in another national program in Cincinnati, as well as a BYU team that's been a perennial NCAA Tournament participant.  It'll obviously be a few years until they join the league, but it's still fun to think about.

Now, with the Big 12's status resolved, that means our next round of changes will likely come in the American Athletic Conference, which lost its two biggest overall programs, as well as its best football team.  And there should be no shortage of interested candidates for the conference that views itself as "Power 6."  AAC Commissioner Mike Aresco has promised they won't "poach" any schools from other conferences, but who we kidding?  In order for a school to join the AAC, they have to leave their current league!

What fascinates me about a potential AAC expansion is how many teams they'll shoot for.  UConn returning to the Big East left them with 11 members, so they haven't had divisions in football for the last two seasons.  That number will drop to eight with Houston, Central Florida and Cincinnati leaving.  Eight's obviously too small a number, so you know they'll have to expand.  The question is whether it'll be two or four teams that will be added.  My guess is four to get them back to 12.

An interesting thing about the American, though, is that, while it's an all-sports conference, only 10 of the 11 members have football teams.  Wichita State is in the American for every sport except football, while Navy is in the conference for football only.  So, does the American only look to add football schools, or do they seek another Wichita State/Navy-type combination?  Or a mixture of the two?

Of course, there's only one school that can provide the football half of that combo--Army.  Army is independent in football, already plays Navy in the final game every season, and would be a natural fit for the American should they want to do it.  And they're obviously a brand name, too, which certainly helps!

Who would Army's basketball partner be, though?  I've heard rumblings about VCU, which would be a logical choice for the American.  From a basketball perspective, VCU is very similar to Wichita State.  It would be a good program for the conference to add, and the conference would be a good fit for the school.  It would only work if Army joined the American in football, though.  Because otherwise, I don't see them adding a basketball-only school.

For the sake of argument, I'm gonna assume the Army/VCU combo is a go.  Both Army football and VCU basketball make a lot of sense for the American.  But what about the other three additions?  That's where it gets interesting.  Because there will definitely be more than three schools that are interested.

One school that I think is a lock to join the American is UAB.  UAB currently plays in Conference USA, which is where new members of the American typically come from.  And I think they're a no-brainer for a few reasons.  First, they have an endowment of half a billion!  Second, the Birmingham market is largely untapped (even though it's full of mostly Alabama and Auburn fans).  Finally, they've been fairly successful in both basketball and football, and both teams play in good-sized venues.  So they fit in with the current American members very well.

After UAB and Army/VCU is where it gets interesting.  I've heard schools like Boise State and San Diego State mentioned, but would the American really be considered an upgrade over the Mountain West for them?  Not really.  So I don't see why they would find any value in leaving the Mountain West for the American.  I do see other Conference USA and Atlantic 10 teams making a push for those two remaining expansion spots in the American, though.

It's my understanding that UMass really wants in.  UMass has been looking for a football conference ever since leaving the MAC in 2015.  And you know they'd love to revive their rivalry with Temple!  But do you gain anything by adding UMass?  Certainly not in football!  Their basketball team has been down in recent years, too.  Plus, UMass is basically a replacement for UConn.  Which could be either a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it.

Old Dominion is another interesting possibility.  One that may seem completely out of left field.  However, Old Dominion is already an associate member of the AAC in both women's rowing and women's lacrosse, so it's not that big a stretch to see them bringing all of their teams over.  And they're in Norfolk, which would make them a natural travel partner for VCU (which doesn't matter so much in football, but is important for the Olympic sports).

Or, how about Charlotte?  Charlotte's football program is relatively young, but made its first bowl appearance in 2019 and has a win over Duke this season.  And being in the American would only make them better.  Plus, Charlotte is a major city with an airport that serves as a hub for a lot of airlines, meaning it's a very easy place for everybody to get to.  That's something any conference considering expansion has to like.

Finally, there's Florida International.  I'd consider this one to be almost as much of a guarantee as UAB.  Central Florida is in Orlando.  Florida International is in Miami.  So you're trading one major city for another.  And their school size is very similar.  Perhaps most importantly, they've got a good football team, which might be the single biggest factor working in their favor.  The American is losing its three best football programs and needs quality teams to replace them.  FIU certainly fits that bill.

If the American only adds two schools to get to 10, I'd say it's UAB and Florida International.  But I have a feeling they'll want to get back to 12 and go after four schools.  Which means the Army/VCU combo and either Old Dominion or Charlotte would also get the invite.  If I had to guess, I'd say Charlotte.

The (Last) Time Sports Stood Still

When COVID started raging out of control last March and we all began suffering through lockdowns and stay-at-home orders, we didn't even have sports to keep us occupied.  When society shut down, that included all competitive sports, as well.  Sports didn't return for months.  To suddenly not have sports was certainly an abrupt change.  But it wasn't the first time the entire sports world shut down.

Over the weekend, as we were commemorating the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I thought back to 20 years ago and the role sports played in the aftermath of that day.  But not right away.  Unlike with the COVID pause, when America wanted and needed the distraction but couldn't have it, sports were the furthest thing from anyone's mind in the days after 9/11.  The horror we witnessed that day was the only thing we could think about.  Playing sports would've felt inappropriate.

The other big difference between sports after COVID and sports after 9/11, of course, is the role sports played.  After COVID, everything just felt and looked weird.  After 9/11, it was just the opposite.  Things felt normal again.  More importantly, it made it OK to be happy, even if it was for something as simple as a game-winning home run or touchdown pass.

Both returns were all about timing.  With COVID, it was a matter of when they'd be allowed to even play, knowing that they'd have to wait a long time to have fans in the stands.  After 9/11, the safety concern wasn't about people getting each other sick with a deadly virus.  The sheer act of playing the game and fans gathering to watch it wasn't a "dangerous" activity in and of itself.  Rather, the worry was about whether thousands of fans in a sold out NFL or MLB stadium was a prime target for the next attack.

In 2001, we only went a week without sports.  The NFL and MLB simply moved the postponed games to the end of the season and pushed the playoffs back, but they were both back up and running again by the following Monday.  And the timing felt right.  America needed and got time to process what had happened and to grieve.  Then, when we were ready for them, sports were there for us again.

And who can forget Mike Piazza's home run in the Mets' first home game after the attacks?  Or the Yankees' run to the World Series, when they suddenly had America rooting for them for a change?  Or that beautiful poem that Jack Buck wrote and recited in St. Louis?  And so many different examples from all across the country that showed just how much people's teams meant to them.

Of course, we also had a memorable World Series and a memorable Super Bowl post-9/11.  That seven-game classic between the Yankees and Diamondbacks is widely considered one of the greatest World Series of all time.  And, the following February, the Legend of Tom Brady was born when the Patriots used a last-second field goal to beat the Rams.  Obviously, what none of us knew at the time was that Tom Brady winning the Super Bowl would soon become such a regular occurrence that most people got sick of it.

It's ironic, too, that the February Super Bowl, which also became a regular occurrence, was a direct result of 9/11.  There was no off week between the Conference Championship Games and Super Bowl that season, so they had to move the Super Bowl back, too, from its traditional last Sunday in January date to the first Sunday in February.  As it turns out, Super Bowl XXXVII the next year would be the last January Super Bowl.

Ditto with the November World Series.  Pre-9/11, the idea of baseball in November was crazy.  When that World Series got pushed back, it became a possibility.  Then when it went seven, it became reality.  Suddenly, we had November baseball.  And Derek Jeter gave us our first classic November baseball moment (he totally should've had "Mr. November" on his Hall of Fame plaque!).  And, while Baseball still tries to avoid it if possible, the idea of baseball in November suddenly isn't a crazy concept anymore.  (Game 7 this season is scheduled for November 3.)

There was one event that was delayed a year post-9/11--the Ryder Cup.  The U.S. team was scheduled to travel to Europe just two weeks later, and there was justifiable apprehension about that, so they moved it to 2002, but still called it the 2001 Ryder Cup (kinda like the "2020" Olympics).  What's ironic about that is, with the 2020 Ryder Cup also postponed a year because of the pandemic, they're back on the original odd-year schedule (which, with golf in the Olympics now, is actually better since they won't be in the same year moving forward).

Another thing about the events of 9/11 that always strikes me is how the last game completed before the world changed forever was the New York Giants' loss to Broncos in the Week 1 Monday Night Football game.  It ended after midnight, so it actually finished on 9/11 New York time.  And the Giants left right after the game, so it was literally just a few hours between their getting home and New York's skyline suddenly looking completely different.

Everyone who was alive that day remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing on September 11, 2001.  I was a sophomore in college sitting in my 8:30 class.  We heard rumblings, but I didn't know the true extent of what was going on until my class ended.  Then I just stood there watching in horror for an hour before my next class.

Then, a few days later, I was ready to feel something else.  Fortunately, sports were there, and that made it OK to be happy again.  Rooting for the Yankees and Giants was catharsis.  It's something you didn't even know how much you needed.  Just watching and tuning everything else.  It was normal.  And there's nothing wrong with normal.

Does any of this sound familiar?  While the reasons for the sports shutdowns in 2001 and 2020 were very different, the returns from those breaks were actually very similar.  Both times, we realized how sports are both so important and so unimportant at the same time.  And both times, it made us appreciate them so much more when they came back.

Picking Football Games, Week 1

We've made it!  It's football season!  And, the return of football season also means the return of my weekly picks.  For those of you who are uninitiated, I always pick the Thursday night game, but don't do the blog post until right before the Sunday games.  The only exceptions are Week 1 and Thanksgiving.

Another note for the uninitiated...I only pick winners.  I don't care about the spread.  Why?  Because the spread is irrelevant!  "Covered the spread" isn't a column in the standings!  It's either a win or a loss.  Or a tie.  So, that's my rationale there.  And with that, it's on to the picks...

Cowboys at Buccaneers: Tampa Bay-The last time Brady played in the Kickoff Game, the Patriots got their butts kicked (remember, two years ago they did Bears-Packers for the 100th anniversary).  Is it too much to hope the same thing happens again?  Probably.  I do think this year's edition of the Cowboys will be much better than last season's injury-plagued version.  They're not gonna spoil the Bucs' championship celebration, though.

Eagles at Falcons: Philadelphia-Neither one of these teams figures to be in the mix as the season goes on.  But this is a good chance to start the season on the right foot.  It's also a good chance for Jalen Hurts to justify the belief that the Eagles have in him.  I, for one, don't see it.  But that doesn't mean they aren't capable of beating the Falcons.

Steelers at Bills: Buffalo-If there's one team that's ready for the season to start, it's probably the Bills after all of their offseason turmoil.  As for the Steelers, they're probably just ready to turn the page after the way last season finished.  The good news is they won't have to worry about being the last undefeated team and wondering how long it lasts.  Because, even with everything they had to go through, the Bills should still be able to pull this one out.

Vikings at Bengals: Minnesota-Cincinnati has a chance to make a real statement.  Which the Bengals need to do in a division with three playoff teams.  They also have the benefit of starting at home.  And they get Joe Burrow back.  Even still, I'm not sure they beat the Vikings.  Minnesota's the type of team that will catch you when you're not looking.  I think that's exactly what'll happen here.  That's why I'm picking the Vikings.

49ers at Lions: San Francisco-This is a good opportunity for both San Francisco and Detroit to start the season with a win.  And Jared Goff has got to feel good about playing a familiar opponent in his Lions debut.  Unfortunately, his current team isn't as good as the one he left.  I know a lot of people are higher on the 49ers than I am, but I do agree that they'll start the season with a victory.

Cardinals at Titans: Arizona-Tennessee made the playoffs last season and Arizona should've.  They've both got a good chance of getting there this season, too.  So this is actually a big one right off the bat.  Especially for the Cardinals, who have to deal with the Seahawks and Rams.  In other words, the Titans are better-equipped to bounce back from a loss than Arizona is.

Seahawks at Colts: Seattle-Indy has gone from Philip Rivers to Carson Wentz, who gets a chance to prove the Eagles were wrong for letting him go (which I think they were...he wasn't the problem).  The Seahawks are a tough draw in the opener, though.  I'm just not sure if they can hang with Seattle.  Traveling and playing an early game has proven not to be an issue for them.  It should be made even easier by the fact that they only have to go to the Midwest.

Chargers at Washington: Chargers-Call me crazy, but I think the Chargers have the potential to be a real dark horse team this year.  (I did pick them to make the playoffs, after all!)  They can really start to hammer that point across if they pull off a win after their Week 1 cross-country trip.  It was a cute story in Washington last year with the name change and winning the (incredibly weak) division and Alex Smith winning Comeback Player of the Year.  Reality will begin to set in early this season.  Because Washington is not a very good Football Team.

Jets at Panthers: Carolina-Either Carolina or the Jets is gonna get a Week 1 win.  That's the good news.  Because the wins after Week 1 will be few and far between.  While I'm excited to see what Zach Wilson can do, I think the first few weeks will be a struggle (which they usually are for rookie quarterbacks on bad teams).  That's why I'm going with the Panthers at home.

Jaguars at Texans: Jacksonville-For some reason, the NFL likes to have the bad teams play each other in Week 1 (probably because they have all the good teams play each other for TV).  As a result, Trevor Lawrence and Urban Meyer get a very winnable game in their NFL debuts.  In fact, I don't just think it's winnable.  I'd be very surprised if it's not a Jacksonville win.  Although, this is one of the few games on the Texans' schedule that they consider winnable themselves, so it should still be close.

Browns at Chiefs: Kansas City-Last season's playoff game between these two was highly entertaining!  Let's hope this one is just as good!  Tough draw for the Browns, too.  They had a brutal schedule to start the season two years ago, struggled out of the gate, and never really got going.  Hopefully that's not the case again in 2021 and they can build on that momentum from last season's playoff berth.  Even after starting 0-1.

Dolphins at Patriots: New England-Year 2 for the post-Brady Patriots should be much better than Year 1.  They actually have a new identity now, and I think moving on from Cam Newton was probably a good thing.  We'll see that on display in Week 1.  Frankly, I don't think this game will be particularly close.

Packers vs. Saints: New Orleans-I know what you're thinking: "He picked the Packers to win the Super Bowl, but he has them losing Week 1?"  Yes.  Yes I do.  It wasn't exactly a normal offseason in Green Bay and a matchup against a good Saints team, while it makes sense for FOX because it's a good featured national game, is bad for them.  The fact that it's being played in Jacksonville instead of New Orleans will help a little, but I just think the Saints are a little more prepared for it.  And you know they'll be motivated to win it for their city.

Broncos at Giants: Giants-It's crazy to think that even though a lot of people considered the Giants a "bad" team last season, they still almost won the division, and the only reason they didn't was because of a lot of close losses early in the season.  Here's their chance to begin rewriting that script.  Because Denver has also shown a knack for close, last-second, early-season losses.  This'll come down to a late field goal either way.

Bears at Rams: Rams-Let's try this again.  They scheduled the Rams for the Sunday night opener last season...only for the game to be played without fans.  That's no way to open a new stadium!  This year, they get a do-over.  And it'll be great to see that beautiful stadium filled with fans for the first time!  For all the opponents the NFL could've chosen, I think the Bears were a good one.  Not because I think Chicago deserves to be on national TV in Week 1, but because it should be a pretty easy Rams win.

Ravens at Raiders: Baltimore-Ditto about the Raiders.  Take two on the first NFL game with fans in Las Vegas.  I'm glad the NFL decided to give those two the Sunday and Monday night games again, so that they could still have that special moment.  Unfortunately for the Raiders, their opponent is significantly better than the Rams' opponent.  Baltimore was my preseason pick to make the Super Bowl, so it would be really bad if I picked them to lose in Week 1.

Football Season, Part 2

With all of their starters returning from their Super Bowl championship team last season, I've heard a lot of talk about whether the Bucs can go undefeated this season.  Which is ridiculous!  They're still in the same division as the Saints, who, even though they no longer have the retired Drew Brees, are still one of the best teams in all of football.

So, no, the Bucs won't go undefeated this season!  And it's not just the Saints who'll be in their way.  It's all of the usual suspects.  The Rams are looking to follow in Tampa Bay's footsteps and win a Super Bowl on their home field.  We'll see what type of an impact that Stafford-for-Goff QB swap has.  (Frankly, I think Goff is the better quarterback.)

Then there's the Packers.  All of that drama surrounding Aaron Rodgers in the offseason ended up being much ado about nothing, and he's back for what most agree is a final season in Green Bay.  Can he end it by finally winning another NFC Championship Game?  The fact that they keep losing the NFC Championship Game seems to overshadow the fact that they're always good enough to get there.

I didn't forget about the Seahawks, either.  Seattle's a very dangerous team.  Remember how well they started last season?  If they can keep everyone healthy and keep their momentum going all year, it won't just be the Kraken that has Seattle fans excited in December and January.

NFC East: That leaves us with the NFC East, which was very much the NFC Least in 2020.  Washington wasn't a good team, but got hot down the stretch, took advantage of a bad division, and made the playoffs at 7-9.  That record is obviously impossible to repeat, for a few reasons.  The main one being that they still aren't any good.  But in the NFC East, you don't need to be good.  You just need to be the least bad of the four.

Although, the least bad NFC East team is pretty clear.  That is, as long as they're healthy.  Which last year they weren't.  That team, of course, is the Dallas Cowboys.  A healthy Cowboys team is the clear division favorite, even if they're only a game or two over .500.  Should Dallas have to deal with injuries again, the Giants and Eagles will be right there to pick up the pieces.  I'm not sure about Jalen Hurts as an NFL starter, though.  I hope the Eagles know what they're doing.
Projected Standings: Cowboys 9-8, Giants 7-10, Eagles 6-11, Washington 4-13

NFC North: There's a reason why the Packers win the NFC North seemingly every year.  It's not just the fact that they're consistently good.  It's also the fact that they're clearly superior to the other three teams in the division.  The Bears somehow made the playoffs last season thanks to the extra wild card, but they're overrated.  The Vikings will beat some good teams and play competitive games, but ultimately finish out of the running.  And the Lions are a mess.

Can one of them theoretically keep the division title out of Green Bay?  Of course!  Does it seem likely?  No, it doesn't.  The Packers are just that much better than each of them.  Green Bay shouldn't have to worry about the division.  They'll be more concerned with playoff seeding.  (Although, as we saw last year, even playing the NFC Championship Game in Lambeau doesn't seem to make much of a difference.)
Projected Standings: Packers 13-4, Bears 8-9, Vikings 6-11, Lions 3-14

NFC South: Even without Drew Brees, the Saints are still one of the best teams in all of football.  And the NFC South should once again be a two-team race between them and the Bucs.  It would be easy to call Tampa Bay the division favorite, but I'm not discounting the Saints just yet.  Either way, it'll come down to only a game or two to determine which has a home playoff game and which visits the NFC East champion.

And, Atlanta and/or Carolina could have a lot to say about that.  I'm not saying I see the Falcons and Panthers as potential playoff teams.  I don't.  But I can see either or both of them knocking off one of those top two division rivals...and that could be the game that decides New Orleans and Tampa Bay's playoff positions.
Projected Standings: Saints 15-2, Buccaneers 14-3, Falcons 5-12, Panthers 4-13

NFC West: Last year, the NFC West almost had and probably should've had three playoff teams.  And that doesn't include a 49ers team that a lot of people really like.  I'm not one of them, but that's beside the point.  Because San Francisco will probably be the best last-place team in the NFL.  The other three teams, meanwhile, should all be playoff teams.  The only question will be the order.

In 2020, it was the Seahawks who got the home wild card game as division champs, which ultimately didn't matter since the Rams won that game anyway.  This year, I expect those positions to reverse.  I don't know.  It's just something about the fact that the Rams will finally get to play in front of fans at their new stadium.  I think that'll be the difference.  Arizona, meanwhile, I don't think falters down the stretch and costs themselves a playoff spot this time.  That actually might've been a good thing for the Cardinals, who added some guy named J.J. Watt to their defense.
Projected Standings: Rams 13-4, Seahawks 11-6, Cardinals 9-8, 49ers 7-10

That gives you NFC playoff seeds as: 1-New Orleans, 2-Rams, 3-Green Bay, 4-Dallas, 5-Tampa Bay, 6-Seattle, 7-Arizona.  And wild card matchups of: Arizona at Rams, Seattle at Green Bay, Tampa Bay at Dallas.  And, frankly, that's a pretty good playoff field!  The NFC is so top-heavy that the playoffs should be wide open.

Ultimately, I think it's gonna be the Packers that emerge from that crazy mix (although you could easily choose the NFC champion out of a hat).  They head to LA for a Super Bowl matchup with the Ravens and send Aaron Rodgers out on top.  He always plays better when he's pissed off for some reason, and I think after all of that offseason drama, his Packers career will end in the most storybook way possible.

Football Season, Part 1

Well, ladies and gentlemen, we made it through the final NFL-less Sunday of 2021.  And, with an extra week added to the season, there won't be another one until late February.  The 17th game is obviously the biggest change in the NFL this season, and it's probably the biggest since they added the 15th and 16th games in 1978.  This season will also, hopefully, be somewhat of a return to normal after COVID wreaked so much havoc on the 2020 campaign.

Another big difference this season is how the league plans on dealing with COVID.  Last year, they were playing during a still-raging pandemic, so they didn't have much of a choice but to be flexible.  This year, there won't be anywhere near the same flexibility.  Not with players, staff and fans all getting vaccinated.  They can't require players to get vaccinated, but the teams whose players do will definitely have an advantage. 

It's not as black-and-white an issue as I'm making it, but the teams with the most unvaccinated players are at a far greater risk of having games postponed, etc.  That's the last thing a good team needs.  If you're a team thinking Super Bowl like the Chiefs or Bills, you don't want to be thinking about COVID restrictions and potentially losing players because of a stupid thing like a positive test.  Just imagine if a player's positive COVID test was the difference between making the playoffs or not or winning the division or not or getting that bye as the 1-seed or not.

I say all this because I think things in the AFC will be very similar to last season.  At least they will be at the top.  The Chiefs, Bills and the three teams in the North are a cut above everybody else.  The Chargers and Raiders should both be in the mix for wild cards.  So will the Patriots if they get their QB situation figured out.  And, even though the Texans are arguably the worst team in the NFL, the South will provide quite a little battle for the division title.

AFC East: After last season's run to the AFC Championship Game, people should be talking about the Bills as the biggest challenger to Kansas City's throne.  Instead, the biggest headlines the Bills made were about their internal dysfunction and their vocal anti-vaxxers.  Hopefully that doesn't derail the good thing they've got going!  Josh Allen is entering his prime and one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL.  There's every reason to believe the hype surrounding this team.

As for the Patriots, I think Year 2 Post-Brady will go much better than the first.  New England looks like a legitimate playoff contender, even if they still don't have that Patriots aura.  The Dolphins and Jets, meanwhile, should both be better than they were last season.  Enough to be in the mix for playoff berths?  No.  Not in a top-heavy AFC.
Projected Standings: Bills 12-4, Patriots 10-7, Dolphins 7-10, Jets 5-12

AFC North: Three AFC North teams made the playoffs last season, and that could very well happen again.  In fact, I expect it to.  The only question is the order of finish.  Although, I'm not even sure that matters.  Because the Browns and Ravens both won on the road in the Wild Card round last season!  And the Steelers?  Well, had last season ended at Thanksgiving, they would've been money!  Unfortunately, they also had to play the months of December and January...and we all saw what happened!

Overall, I think Baltimore is the strongest team of the three.  At least regular-season wise.  It'll be an incredibly tight race between the three, and that Ravens-Steelers game in Week 18 could very well end up being Game 272 (that doesn't roll off the tongue like "Game 256" does).  The Bengals, meanwhile, are stuck in a division with three playoff teams.  Which means they're destined to finish in last place no matter how good they are!
Projected Standings: Ravens 13-4, Steelers 12-5, Browns 10-7, Bengals 3-14

AFC South: While the AFC South doesn't boast any powerhouse teams, it could end up boasting the best division race.  Because I don't see much of a difference between the Colts and Titans, who were both playoff teams last season.  I'm also curious to see what happens in Jacksonville with Urban Meyer and Trevor Lawrence.  Some people are saying they're suddenly relevant again (I'm not sure how you can be relevant "again" when you've only been relevant for one season in the past 10 years, but that another story).  I'm not willing to go that far, but they'll be much improved.

One team I do agree with all of the experts on is the Texans.  Houston is not a good team.  In fact, I'd be surprised if they win more than two or three games.  They could end up being a big factor in the AFC South race, though.  Because they're gonna beat somebody.  And if that team is the Colts or Titans, it could end up deciding which one wins the division and which one is watching the playoffs from home.  Because I don't see two playoff teams coming out of the AFC South.
Projected Standings: Titans 9-8, Colts 8-9, Jaguars 6-11, Texans 2-15

AFC West: Kansas City has played one bad football game over the past three seasons.  It just so happened to take place in the Super Bowl, where the Chiefs were completely dominated by the Tampa Bay defense.  So, even though they're the two-time defending AFC champions, they feel like they've got something to prove.  They want to show America that Super Bowl LV was a fluke.  They're a better team than that.

The gap is closing, but the Chiefs are still the class of the AFC.  And they will be until they inevitably lose some free agents or salary cap casualties.  As for the AFC West, the Chargers look to be the team most capable of challenging them.  I fully believe they would've been a playoff team last season had Justin Herbert stayed healthy.  I'm not discounting the Raiders or Broncos, either.  The Raiders will be a very tough out in Las Vegas, where they're finally able to have fans in their new stadium.  And the Broncos are about a year or two away from being a regular playoff contender again.
Projected Standings: Chiefs 14-3, Chargers 12-5, Raiders 8-9, Broncos 6-11

So, my AFC playoff seeds are: 1-Chiefs, 2-Ravens, 3-Bills, 4-Titans, 5-Chargers, 6-Steelers, 7-Browns.  That gives Kansas City the only bye for the second straight year, while setting up wild card matchups of: Cleveand at Baltimore, Pittsburgh at Buffalo, Chargers at Tennessee.

Ultimately, I think the AFC title will come down to the Chiefs, Ravens and Bills.  There are a lot of good teams in the conference, but they're the three best.  And, as tempting as it is to say Patrick Mahomes and Co. will be making their third straight Super Bowl appearance, I think what the Bucs exposed will be exposed again during this season's playoffs.  Which is why I'm picking the Ravens to represent the AFC in Super Bowl LVI.  Just call it a hunch.

NHL Back In the Olympics!

I can't really say today's announcement that NHL players will be returning to the Olympics in six months after not playing at the PyeongChang Games was a surprise.  I just needed to wait for it to be official before I could actually get excited about it.  But now the I's have been dotted, the T's have been crossed, and we're once again set to have the Olympic hockey tournament we deserve.

Again, none of this came as a surprise.  It's been unofficially official for a while.  The NHLPA worked 2022 and 2026 Olympic participation into the CBA.  They built an Olympic break into the schedule.  They put the All*Star Game in Las Vegas so that it's a shorter flight to China.  Hell, they even named NHL coaches as coaches of the national teams!

There's an opt-out in the deal with the IOC and IIHF, so there's still a slight chance that they won't go, but that seems unlikely.  If playing in the Olympics was important enough to the players for them to put it into the new CBA, they'll do everything they can to go to Beijing.  So, I think it's safe to say they'll be there.  Which is the best thing for the sport.

The hockey tournament in PyeongChang was fine, but it wasn't the type of tournament we've grown accustomed to.  It was more like a World Championship.  Nothing against the IIHF World Championships.  It's just not the quality of the typical Olympic tournament, where every country has all of its NHL talent available.  It's truly a best vs. best competition.

In PyeongChang, however, not having NHL players put several teams at a disadvantage.  Canada, the U.S. and Sweden obviously still had enough quality players to put together a competitive roster, but they were either minor leaguers, amateurs or former NHL players.  That's how you end up with Germany winning a silver medal.  Meanwhile, the KHL did shut down for the 2018 Olympics, so Russia (sorry "OAR") had an NHL-caliber roster full of KHL players.  They were the gold medal favorites for a reason, and they backed it up by winning gold.  (Fun fact: "Russia" has never technically won Olympic gold in men's hockey.)

Let's not forget the other glaring fact about the NHL's absence from PyeongChang--it'll be eight years between Olympic appearances for the league.  Which means some players who would've made the 2018 roster missed out on what could've been their only Olympic shot, especially if they don't make the team in 2022.  Likewise, 2018 would've been the first Olympics for players like Connor McDavid and Auston Matthews.  It was a huge missed opportunity to not have those young, dynamic, exciting players wearing their National Team jerseys on the biggest stage in sports!

McDavid and Matthews are safe bets to make their Olympic debuts in Beijing.  But who will join them?  Now that NHL participation is set, we can start to ponder that question.  And the U.S. roster will look vastly different than it did in 2014.  A few familiar names will return from Sochi, but eight years is a long time.  And I predict there will be a lot of new faces wearing the red, white and blue in China.

Of course, there's always the possibility of COVID opt-outs, but I don't see there being too many.  These guys have been in a bubble before, especially if they played in the 2020 Stanley Cup Playoffs.  And, more importantly, they want to be there.  The honor of being selected to their nation's Olympic team will trump any concerns they might have.  If they're selected, they won't turn it down.

So who makes it?  I'm only gonna focus on the U.S. right now, and, like I said, there will be a lot of different names than the last NHL-based U.S. Olympic roster.  It'll be extremely competitive for a number of spots, too.  In fact, I had such a hard time narrowing it down to 23 that I easily could've had two quality teams.

Goalie is perhaps the most interesting position on the roster.  They can only take three, so it's really a choice between the veterans with Olympic experience (Jonathan Quick, Ben Bishop) or the young guys who'll be key figures on Team USA moving forward (Spencer Knight, Thatcher Demko).  The starter, however, should be easy.  I didn't realize he's American but Winnipeg's Connor Hellebuyck is by far the best U.S.-born goalie in the NHL right now.

Defense looks like it could be a real strength.  In fact, there are so many good, young American-born defensemen, that narrowing it down to seven will be a challenge.  Reigning Norris Trophy winner Adam Fox of the Rangers should be a lock, as should Washington's John Carlson and Seth Jones of the Blackhawks (it's weird that he's not in Columbus anymore).  The other four, however, are anybody's guess.

It's kind of the same thing with the forwards.  The only locks figure to be Matthews, Jack Eichel and Johnny Gaudreau, all of whom would've made the team in 2018 but will instead be Olympic rookies this time around.  I say you name Pat Maroon to the team, too, just to see if his Stanley Cup mojo carries over.  I'd also think some of the Olympic vets return to bring their experience to what should be a young roster.  That's good news for Patrick Kane, T.J. Oshie and Phil Kessel.

As for the remaining forwards, you really could just pick names out of a hat and not really go wrong.  Because, like I said, some of my Olympic alternates would be no-brainers for any other country (well, except maybe Canada).  I tried to balance my roster, though.  I didn't want all scorers.  Because that's not how you win in the Olympics.  You want players who'll accept being fourth-liners or the tough guy.

With that in mind, here are the 23 players who made the cut for my 2022 U.S. Olympic men's hockey roster (2014 Olympians have an asterisk, 2010 & 2014 Olympians have two asterisks):

Goalies -  Ben Bishop (DAL), *Jonathan Quick (LA), Connor Hellebuyck (WPG)
Defensemen - Brandon Carlo (BOS), Charlie McAvoy (BOS), Seth Jones (CHI), Zach Werenski (CBJ), Adam Fox (NYR), Justin Faulk (STL), *John Carlson (WSH)
Forwards - **Phil Kessel (ARZ), Jack Eichel (BUF), Johnny Gaudreau (CGY), Tyler Johnson (CHI), **Patrick Kane (CHI), Brock Nelson (NYI), Chris Kreider (NYR), Jake Guentzel (PIT), Pat Maroon (TB), Auston Matthews (TOR), *Max Pacioretty (VGK), *T.J. Oshie (WSH), Blake Wheeler (WPG)

A lot of NHL experience, but not a lot of Olympic experience, which is not unexpected when you go eight years between Games.  But, still, it would be a pretty strong team.  The strongest?  Probably not.  Not when Canada can choose any 23 NHL All-Stars they want and the best goalie, Andrei Vasilevskiy, is Russian.  Capable of winning a medal, though?  Absolutely!

And, as another fun little nugget, the U.S. and Canada are in the same group.  Do they schedule that game for Monday morning/Sunday night so NBC can have it be their Super Bowl lead-out program?  You know there are plenty of Americans who wouldn't be opposed to that!

Now It Matters

Winning the Gold Cup and CONCACAF Nations League, but really, who cares?  There's only one CONCACAF competition that fans care about, and the U.S. Men's National Team knows it.  The 14 games of World Cup qualifying over the next six months are the only games that matter.  Because missing the World Cup for the second tournament in a row--when hosting in 2026!--is simply unacceptable.

Not that any of this is news to anybody.  The failure to qualify four years ago was an embarrassment of epic proportions.  It was also most likely an anomaly.  The U.S. is one of the three best teams in CONCACAF.  Everybody knows that.  But this is World Cup qualifying.  Crazy things can happen!

Although, as bad as that loss in Trinidad was, it may have been a good thing in the long run.  It showed that you can't take qualifying for granted.  It's not a foregone conclusion that both Mexico and the U.S. will make the World Cup out of CONCACAF.  And simply having the better talent isn't enough, either.  You need to show up.  That lesson was learned the hard way in Trinidad.

Of course, having better talent and having more of it will pay tremendous dividends during this qualifying cycle.  The Hex had already been expanded to eight teams (the Octo?), increasing the number of games from 10 to 14.  Those games were supposed to start last September.  Now, thanks to COVID, they're playing all 14 games between now and March.  That means three games in eight days during four of the five windows.  So you're gonna need depth and you're gonna need to use it.  Fortunately, the U.S. has arguably the deepest team in CONCACAF.

And that depth has been on full display leading into World Cup qualifying.  In fact, I'd argue that if there was any good thing to come out of the 2018 World Cup qualifying campaign, it was that.  It was a complete reset for the program.  So many veteran players were phased out and replaced by a young group that's hungry.  Christian Pulisic was already the best player.  But now, this is Pulisic's team.

These guys feel like they've got something to prove.  They want to show why they're starters in Europe.  More importantly, they want to bring glory back to Old Glory.  Which they've done with those two tournament victories over the summer. But again, you don't qualify for the World Cup, those tournaments are meaningless.

What the Gold Cup and Nations League did, however, was give this group confidence heading into World Cup qualifying.  Knowing you're the highest-ranked team in the region is one thing.  Going out and proving it is another.  And playing road games on terrible fields in El Salvador and Jamaica with the entire stadium rooting against you is completely different, too.  It's a hostile environment.  Not a 60,000-seat football stadium somewhere in the U.S. with 55,000 American fans and that one section with 5,000 Mexican supporters.

Even still, winning the two summer tournaments showed this group that they can beat those teams.  The situation is vastly different, and I already touched on the added element of playing on the road.  But having recent success against your opponent is huge, especially when only 37.5 percent of the teams qualify directly instead of 50 percent.

That's why getting off to a good start over these first three games will be so important, too.  It's easy to focus on the Trinidad game for obvious reasons, but don't forget how the U.S. started the 2016-17 Hex.  The first two games were against Mexico and Costa Rica.  They lost both.  Zero points out of six in the first two matches, which left them with a lot of pressure to get as many as they could in the final eight.

This time, with the extra four games, there's a lot more margin for error.  But the schedule is also much more favorable.  I'm not talking about the three games per window thing.  That's gonna be brutal!  No, I'm talking about who the U.S. plays and when.  The first two opponents are El Salvador and Canada, arguably the two weakest teams in the Octo.  A prime opportunity to get six points before heading to what should be a tough battle at Honduras (the team the U-23 squad is never able to beat in Olympic qualifying for some reason).

I also like the fact that the last game of qualifying is at Costa Rica.  That's definitely not a gimmie.  They thought Trinidad was four years ago, and it cost them everything.  Of course, the Costa Rica game will hopefully be meaningless for the U.S. if they've already qualified, but that's OK, too.  Point is, this time they know they have to bring their A-game in the finale.  So a Trinidad-like effort seems highly unlikely.

They can also take solace in Italy.  Italy also didn't qualify for the 2018 World Cup.  Just like the U.S., they used that as an opportunity to completely change the makeup of the National Team.  And it obviously worked for Italy.  They weren't just the Euro 2020 champions, they were the best team throughout that entire tournament.

The U.S. Men's National Team doesn't need an Italy-like run.  It's qualifying.  They only need to finish in the top three.  Whether it's in first or in third doesn't really matter.  Because they qualify for the World Cup either way.  And that's the only thing they're playing for right now.

For what it's worth, I don't think we'll see a repeat of Trinidad.  Over the course of 14 games, the U.S. will prove its one of the three best teams in CONCACAF, so qualifying won't be a problem this time.  This team knows there's no other option.  Because a team like the United States in a region like CONCACAF shouldn't be missing the World Cup.  Especially not twice in a row.