Picking Football Games, Week 8

Last week, because stupid Geno Smith decided to get sacked twice instead of throwing one measly completion for like three yards, I ended up losing my fantasy game by half a point!  And I was only playing Geno Smith because it was the Chargers' bye week, so I couldn't use Justin Herbert!  But don't worry, I'm not mad at all about it!

At least I correctly predicted that the Saints would win that game.  And that the Packers would beat the Cardinals on Thursday night (although, who possibly could've seen that last-second interception coming?).  So at least I've got my picks going for me.  And I've actually been surprising myself this season with how often I've gone with my gut and ended up being right.  Not always (see: the Giants last week), but a lot.  Let's see if it continues after I already got the big one for this week...

Thursday Night: Green Bay (Win)

Panthers (3-4) at Falcons (3-3): Carolina-Will Atlanta fans have double the reason to celebrate on Halloween night?  Frankly, I think the Braves' chances of closing out the World Series are better than the Falcons' chances here.  Yes, they come in on a two-game winning streak.  But those games were against the Jets and Dolphins!  Granted, the Panthers looked like complete trash last week against the Giants.  There's something I like about them in this matchup, though.

Dolphins (1-6) at Bills (4-2): Buffalo-When they met in Miami in Week 2, the Bills pitched a 35-0 shutout.  That was the first of six straight losses for the Dolphins, who actually beat New England in their opener.  And, frankly, things are just getting worse for Brian Flores' crew.  They came back from London, had the game against the Falcons won, and Atlanta kicked that last-second field goal.  It doesn't get any easier with a trip to Buffalo (although they do host Houston next week).

49ers (2-4) at Bears (3-4): Chicago-This one is actually in the 1:00 window, so you don't have to hear me complain about the NFL choosing it as a national game.  They both badly need a win if they want to keep pace in divisions that are looking like they could become runaways.  Even if the divisions are out of reach, they're both in the mix for the third wild card, though.  And a 4-4 record at midseason would keep the Bears very much in the thick of things.

Steelers (3-3) at Browns (4-3): Pittsburgh-Oh, the crazy AFC North!  The Steelers are in last place, but only a game and a half behind the first-place Bengals.  The Browns, meanwhile, are currently holding the third wild card.  That's the last time these two rivals met.  In January in the wild card game.  Neither team can forget what happened, even if the Steelers might want to.  Pittsburgh will have revenge on its mind.  That's why I'm going with the Steelers.

Eagles (2-5) at Lions (0-7): Philadelphia-Do I think the Lions will go 0-17?  No I do not.  Do I think this is one of their best chances to get a win?  Yes I do.  So why am I picking the Eagles then?  I'm not entirely sure.  I just think this isn't the week for Detroit.  The Lions will go into their bye at 0-8, then come out of it and shock somebody for win No. 1.  It just won't be the Eagles.

Titans (5-2) at Colts (3-4): Tennessee-If the Colts have any hopes at all of winning the AFC South, they need to at least split with the Titans this season.  That's what happened last year, when they both won on the road (and it was the Colts' loss to Jacksonville that gave Tennessee the division).  Both teams are different this year, obviously, and frankly, the Titans are just better.  They'll go to 6-2 and take a three-game stranglehold on the division.

Bengals (5-2) at Jets (1-5): Cincinnati-Ladies and gentlemen, the Cincinnati Bengals are for real!  That was as big a statement as they could possibly make last week and it has them, at least for now, sitting atop the AFC North.  So this isn't just your regular "who cares?" Bengals-Jets game.  Cincinnati's relevant, which means they can't sleep on a game like this one.  It actually matters.  They need to show up and play like it.

Rams (6-1) at Texans (1-6): Rams-Green Bay did the Rams a huge favor on Thursday night.  There's obviously still a lot of season left and Arizona still currently holds the head-to-head tiebreaker.  But they know that the division is suddenly back up for grabs.  They also know that they need to seize the opportunity that they're being presented this week and take care of a Texans team that they're significantly better than.

Patriots (3-4) at Chargers (4-2): Chargers-Some of the talk about how great the Chargers are definitely quieted down after they got thumped by Baltimore before their bye week.  And you know they're eager to get back on the field after having two whole weeks to think about that clunker.  I'm curious to see how they respond.  And how they deal with a Patriots team that ran up the score on the Jets last week to the tune of 54-13.  You don't have Brady anymore, guys!  Save some of the touchdowns for other games!

Jaguars (1-5) at Seahawks (2-5): Seattle-The Seahawks do have a few things going for them right now.  Seattle is so excited about the Kraken that people aren't paying as much attention to the fact that they suck as they otherwise might.  They're also not playing on prime time for the first time in a month.  Those three straight prime time games were great exposure...but they went 0-3 in them!  Now it's back to Sunday afternoon, where they can hopefully go unnoticed.  Finally, they're playing Jacksonville.  The Jaguars finally stopped their 20-game losing streak.  Now it's time for them to start another one.

Washington (2-5) at Broncos (3-4): Denver-Remember when Denver started the season 3-0?  That was when they played the Giants, Jets and Jaguars all in a row.  Then they had a four-game stretch where they played Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas and Cleveland and lost them all.  Which tells you Denver is beating the teams it should beat.  Washington falls into the category of a team the Broncos should beat.  Especially in Denver.

Buccaneers (6-1) at Saints (4-2): New Orleans-It doesn't have quite the same gusto this season with Brees retired, but Bucs-Saints is still a matchup worthy of its billing.  Especially after last season's three meetings, when New Orleans swept Tampa in the regular season (embarrassing the Bucs on that Sunday night), only to have Tampa Bay win the game that mattered most in the Divisional Playoffs.  This season, the shoe's on the other foot.  The Saints are doing the chasing.  They'll either make things a lot closer with a win here or start making their travel plans for Wild Card Weekend with a loss.

Cowboys (5-1) at Vikings (3-3): Dallas-There's a big asterisk hanging over the Sunday night affair, and that's Dak Prescott.  As we've seen, the Cowboys are a much better team with their quarterback than they are without him.  So, Dak's health could be a huge factor in this game.  If he doesn't play or does but isn't 100 percent, don't be surprised to see the Vikings pull the upset.  If Dak's his usual self, though, Dallas goes to 6-1.  Also, I've gotta say, you had a chance to have the Raiders and their scary fans play on Halloween night and you didn't take it?  Come on NFL!

Giants (2-5) at Chiefs (3-4): Kansas City-Maybe Kansas City just isn't as good anymore.  That's really the only explanation I can think of as to why they still haven't clicked yet.  And teams can't have learned that much from watching the game tape of the Super Bowl no matter how many times they watch it!  The Giants are also better than their 2-5 record, as evidence by what they did to Carolina last week.  Whenever the Chiefs are down, though, they take it out on their next opponent.  Especially if it's somebody they know they should beat.  Like the Giants.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-4
Overall: 74-34

Keep Them Separate

Back in March, the NCAA received a lot of criticism (and rightfully so) for the extreme differences in the conditions of the weight room (among other things) at the Men's Final Four and Women's Final Four.  That led the NCAA to do a thorough review of all its sports/championships and determine what changes should be implemented.  The committee has made its recommendations, and, frankly, some of them don't make much sense.

The biggest change they recommended was looking into holding the Men's and Women's Final Fours together in the same city.  The argument is that this would increase the exposure for the women's event.  In reality, however, the exact opposite would happen.  The Women's Final Four would end up being completely overshadowed by the men's.

Women's basketball is one of the highest-profile NCAA sports.  They need to take advantage of that and allow the Women's Final Four to be a showcase of the sport.  Combining it with the Men's Final Four may sound great in theory, but doing so wouldn't give the women the showcase they deserve.  Instead, they'd be treated as the warm-up act.  The undercard before the main event, playing on Friday and Sunday before the men go on Saturday and Monday.

Would there be a slight attendance bump for the women by combining the Final Fours?  Perhaps.  But are they gonna fill a 70,000-seat NFL stadium?  Probably not.  So, the NCAA would either need to curtain off sections or deal with the unpleasant aesthetic of thousands of empty seats.  Either one isn't a good look.  Especially when the women would sell out a smaller arena.

That may sound like a knock on the women's game, but it's not intended to be.  In fact, it speaks volumes to the popularity of the women's game that the Women's Final Four is regularly sold out.  Which clearly shows the event is capable of being a showcase all on its own.  They don't need the men to draw a crowd.  That's another reason not to combine the events.

Combining the Men's and Women's Final Fours would also take away one huge advantage the women have over the men.  Because the men play in a dome, they're limited to a rotation of the same 8-10 cities.  The Women's Final Four, however, can be held in pretty much any city.  While they sometimes play in a dome, as well (this year's Women's Final Four was at the Alamodome in San Antonio, for example), they can play in pretty much any city that has an NBA team.  And even some that don't (Columbus, Nashville and Tampa have all hosted in recent years).  Why not take advantage of that and continue moving the Women's Final Four around the country in a way that the men's can't?

While it wouldn't work in basketball, I'm not opposed to the idea of a combined championship in some other sports.  In sports like track & field, cross country and swimming, separating the NCAA Championships wouldn't make any sense!  But they also combined the rescheduled NCAA Soccer Championships in April-May very successfully.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a combined College Cup again in the future.  I'd also like to see what a combined Men's and Women's Lacrosse Final Four would look like.  I think that it could work very well in lacrosse, especially if they had a Fan Fest as a part of the weekend.

Which brings me to my other big issue with the committee's recommendations.  They suggested dropping the gender identifiers in the name of individual NCAA Championships.  Which, again, is just dumb.  And I'm not sure what it would accomplish, either.  If you drop the "Men's" and "Women's" identifiers, how are people supposed to know which one is which?

This is another point that was brought up among the Men's/Women's Final Four issues in March.  The argument then was, "Why is it 'Women's Final Four,' when the men's is just 'Final Four'?"  I agree with that point to a degree, but the solution shouldn't be to drop "Women's."  It should be to add "Men's."  Which would put basketball in line with every other sport where the NCAA sponsors championships on both the men's and women's side.

Those gender identifiers are necessary to differentiate the men's and women's championships.  They're different events.  They need to be recognized and treated as such.  The mere suggestion that gender identifiers need to be dropped would, once again, have the opposite effect.  Instead of distinguishing two distinct tournaments that crown two different champions, the lines would be blurred, leading to nothing but confusion.  How does that help anybody?

I'm also not sure where the idea of the "men's" and "women's" labels being a bad thing or somehow offensive came from, either.  Nobody has a problem with them in the Olympics, where they make it a point to distinguish between men's, women's and mixed events.  Not only that, the IOC requires that any new sport have both men's and women's events (at least), and they're very proud of the fact that Paris 2024 will be the first Olympics to have an equal number of men's and women's events. 

Speaking of the Olympics, another suggestion regarding NCAA Championships was made a few weeks ago that I think is a great idea.  The USOPC and the different U.S. sport federations have broached the subject of partnering with the NCAA in staging the championships.  The rationale is solid.  A majority of the U.S. Olympic team comes from the NCAA ranks, so it makes complete sense for the national federation to be invested in and want to be involved with the NCAA Championships.

Think of the possibilities that would create, too.  The first thing that comes to mind is the idea of NCAA Championships at National Team Training Centers.  That would give the NCAA Championships competitors access to the same world-class facilities and amenities as the members of the U.S. National Team.  That's an opportunity they might never get otherwise.  Likewise, it would increase their exposure to National Team coaches and staff.  And the co-branding opportunities would be a win-win for both the NCAA and the USOPC.

A change like that would be good and welcome.  But not every change is good.  Changes such as having the Men's and Women's Final Fours in the same city or dropping gender identifiers in the name of NCAA Championships wouldn't be.  Those would be changes for the sake of change.  And they would probably hurt more than they would help.

Not the World Series We Expected

I saw a ridiculous article lamenting that "the two best teams aren't in the World Series," to which I say, "So what?"  It's not the first time that the "best" teams didn't make it, and it won't be the last.  I also saw articles complaining that the Braves had home field in the NLCS even though the Dodgers won 106 games.  Well, get over it!  That's the format, which is designed that way intentionally so that the division winner isn't at a disadvantage.  Everyone knows that's the deal.  It's part of the reason winning the division is so important.  So, sorry, it wasn't "unfair" to the Dodgers that the Braves had home field.  (BTW, the Dodgers would've had home field in the World Series had they won since that is based on wins.)

This isn't the World Series we expected, but it's the one we got.  The Braves had the fewest wins of any playoff team.  Nobody gave them a chance against the Dodgers in the NLCS.  Yet here they are.  Atlanta got hot, LA had too many injuries, and the Braves advanced to their first World Series in 22 years.

After Game 3 of the ALCS, everyone was acting like the series was already over.  The Red Sox had scored approximately 35 runs in the last two games and there was "no way" the Astros' pitching would be able to contain the Boston offense.  Then the Red Sox stopped hitting, Yordan Alvarez started hitting, and Houston won its third pennant in five seasons.

So, regardless of what some people may have expected or wanted, it's Braves-Astros.  It is a surprise.  There's no doubt about that.  Atlanta had to completely remake its outfield at the All*Star Break, and Houston had no starting pitching to speak of for much of the season.  Neither one was favored in the LCS.  Now they head into a World Series that they both have very realistic thoughts about winning.

As with any World Series (or championship of any sort), there are plenty of ridiculous storylines.  There's all the people who think the Braves reaching the World Series is some sort of karmic justice for MLB moving the All*Star Game, which was originally supposed to be in Atlanta.  Which is utter nonsense! 

Likewise, there are those who see this as some sort of "redemption" for the Astros after the cheating scandal.  If anything, it makes the cheating scandal look even dumber in comparison.  Because they were good enough to win without cheating.  (And, seeing as the players were never punished, the resentment isn't going away anytime soon.)

There are plenty of feel-good stories surrounding this World Series, though.  Dusty Baker is finally back in the Fall Classic for the first time since 2002.  It would be great to see him get a ring after such a long and distinguished managerial career.  The same can also be said for Braves manager Brian Snitker, a baseball lifer who's spent decades in the organization.  (Snitker's son is a coach for the Astros, so the Snitker family is guaranteed a ring no matter what.)  And, in an era where analytics-driven young managers are all the rage, we have the matchup of the two oldest World Series managers in history.  That should tell you something.

Then there's Freddie Freeman.  It'll be so great to see him in a World Series!  He's been the Face of the Braves since Chipper Jones retired, as well as one of the best players in baseball over the past decade.  He deserves to play in a World Series, and I'm glad he'll finally get to!  It's also cool to see the Braves back in the World Series in the year we lost Hank Aaron.  What a great way to honor his legacy!

Joc Pederson is also worth a mention.  He won a ring last year with the Dodgers and has a chance to become just the ninth player in history to win consecutive World Series with different teams.  Joc's already a bit of a cult hero because of his ridiculous production in the postseason.  This can just add to his legendary status.
  
Of course, Pederson may not even be in the Atlanta lineup for Game 1, when Framber Valdez will be on the mound for Houston after the best start by any pitcher in either LCS.  But Jorge Soler will be in there instead.  Soler just came back from having COVID and Pederson took his place in right field during his absence.  But, with the first two games in Houston, Atlanta will get a chance to play them both.  Unless Pederson sits against Valdez, in which case Soler can play right and Johan Camargo can DH.

Houston, on the other hand, has the typical AL problem.  What are they gonna do about the outfield when the series shifts to Atlanta?  How do they keep both Alvarez's and Brantley's bats in the lineup?  Would they consider putting Alvarez in right and moving Tucker to center, putting two guys out of position in an unfamiliar ballpark (that presumably doesn't have easily-accessible garbage cans)?

And how's the pitching gonna hold up?  One of the biggest keys of Houston's ALCS comeback was their much-improved starting pitching over the final three games, especially Games 5 and 6.  The starters were not good in the first three games, which led to the bullpen having to get a lot of outs.  That's generally a recipe for disaster in a seven-game series (which both of these teams know firsthand; their bullpens were exhausted after the seven-games-in-seven-days LCSes last year).  But, it actually had the reverse effect.  Since the starters were so bad the first time around, they were fresher and the Red Sox didn't have the at-bats against them in the second start.

Atlanta's NLCS pitching strategy, meanwhile, was just to parade one lefty after another out of the bullpen to counteract the Dodgers' left-handed hitting.  I can see them doing the same thing again.  Expect Matzek and Minter to face Alvarez, Brantley and Tucker quite a few times over the next nine days.  They'll need to get something out of their right-handers, though.  Otherwise Altuve, Correa and Bregman will tee-off.

Overall, though, I think Atlanta has the slight advantage.  And it's because of the starting pitching.  Charlie Morton, Max Fried and Ian Anderson aren't Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz, but they're battle-tested and, frankly, I have more confidence in them than I do in Framber Valdez and Luis Garcia (who were brilliant in the ALCS).

Don't be surprised if the series goes the distance, though.  After all, the Astros have played 14 World Series games over their past two trips.  Houston may be weary of a Game 7, however.  Because, after that long winning streak by home teams in Game 7's, the road team has won the last four.  Which the Astros know well, having won at Dodger Stadium in 2017 and lost at home to Washington in 2019.

It's a little superstitious, but I see that streak reaching five straight.  I'm saying Braves in seven.  (Although, Atlanta has its own eight-game World Series losing streak to worry about first.  I think it gets to 10 before ending in Game 3, which be the first World Series game not played in Texas since Game 5 of 2019, ending another 10-game string.)

Picking Football Games, Week 7

Earlier this week, I saw a graphic on Facebook that broke down the NFL's "tiers" in 2021.  I don't remember exactly where it had everyone in the power rankings, but I do remember the Lions having their own category: "You suck, but we like you because we feel bad for you."  And they were still ranked above the Dolphins, who also had their own category: "You just lost to a team on a 20-game losing streak."

Those rankings will obviously change several times over the course of the season, but this week they should stay pretty solid.  This is the annoying six-team bye week, and that includes three of the good teams (Dallas, Buffalo, Chargers).  And, aside from Ravens-Bengals and Chiefs-Titans, the other good teams aren't really in much danger of losing this week, either.  Obviously, they have to play the games and an upset is always possible.  But the slate of games this week, frankly, isn't overly appealing.

Thursday Night: Cleveland (Win)

Washington (2-4) at Packers (5-1): Green Bay-I think it's safe to say that there are several very good teams in the NFC.  The Green Bay Packers are definitely on that list.  Washington, meanwhile, is not.  The Packers' winning streak is going to end eventually, but it won't be this week.  Not against a bad team at Lambeau.  More importantly, as one of the good teams, they can't afford a loss to one of the bad teams.

Chiefs (3-3) at Titans (4-2): Kansas City-Whenever the Chiefs are backed into a corner, they show up and play their best game of the season.  That happened again last week, when they whooped up on Washington.  Now they need to get out of this loop where they get back to .500, then lose.  And this would be a good place to start.  Because they've already lost to Baltimore and Buffalo (and the Chargers), so they need a win to have any chance of holding any tiebreakers come playoff time.

Falcons (2-3) at Dolphins (1-5): Miami-Both of these teams last played in London.  The Falcons beat the Jets, while the Dolphins helped the Jaguars snap their 20-game losing streak.  Oddly, they don't have a bye week upon their return, which means it's right back in the saddle.  Although, I think that'll actually help them.  Get down to business and get back on the right track by beating Atlanta.

Jets (1-4) at Patriots (2-4): New England-New England has been competitive in every game this season, but the Patriots' only wins are against the Jets and Texans, not exactly a who's who of the NFL's best!  Fortunately, they play the Jets again this week.  That should at least get their record to a more respectable 3-4.  With a tough stretch of games following this one, they need that to have any playoff hopes.

Panthers (3-3) at Giants (1-5): Carolina-There are a lot of people who think the Giants have a good chance to win this game.  I'm one of them.  However, I've also seen the Giants find so many different ways to lose through the first six weeks.  The Panthers, meanwhile, view this one as a game they should win.  Which I think they will.  On the Giants' specialty...a last-second field goal!

Bengals (4-2) at Ravens (5-1): Baltimore-Is it possible that these are the two best teams in the AFC?  It's sure starting to look that way!  The Ravens have beaten both the Chiefs and the Chargers, and I don't think anyone will argue that Cincinnati's 4-2 record isn't legit.  So this isn't just the biggest game of the week, it might be the most important.  And it'll further advance Baltimore's standing as the top team in the AFC.

Eagles (2-4) at Raiders (4-2): Las Vegas-The Raiders were clearly able to put the Jon Gruden situation behind them.  That was an inspired win over the Broncos last week, and they got the added benefit of the Chargers losing, which means they're once again tied for first.  With the Chargers off this week, they can take sole possession of first by beating the Eagles.

Lions (0-6) at Rams (5-1): Rams-At least Sean McVay finally admitted that the way they handled the Jared Goff-Matthew Stafford trade was a mess!  Just imagine what would've happened if he'd never ended up playing golf at the same place as Stafford over the summer!  Goff deserved better, and he'll hopefully get a nice reaction as he returns to SoFi Stadium.  Unfortunately, the greeting he gets from the Rams defense won't be as welcoming.

Texans (1-5) at Cardinals (6-0): Arizona-Another reunion in store this week is J.J. Watt and the Texans.  Of course, this one's a little different since he's not actually returning to Houston.  Competitively, it should go about as well as the Stafford-Rams reunion.  The Texans aren't a good team.  The Cardinals are.

Bears (3-3) at Buccaneers (5-1): Tampa Bay-Can people please get off this "the Bears are actually good" bandwagon?  Because they're not.  They're mediocre at best.  Whether they're "good" or not kinda depends on the week and their opponent.  This won't be one of those weeks and Tampa Bay won't be one of those opponents.

Colts (2-4) at 49ers (2-3): Indianapolis-Why is this game on Sunday night?  For some reason, the NFL thinks people want to watch the Colts play the 49ers.  I'm not entirely sure why.  Because it's not like either one is particularly worth watching.  They easily could've flexed it out for Bengals-Ravens, yet chose not to, so Colts-49ers it is!  I'll go with Indy to win, but, honestly, who cares?!

Saints (3-2) at Seahawks (2-4): New Orleans-Seattle's hoping that its third straight prime time game won't become its third straight prime time loss.  Although, even though they lost last week, Geno Smith more than held his own, so they'll be fine without Russell Wilson.  It's almost a must-win for the Seahawks, who see their season slipping away with each loss (not to mention each Cardinals and Rams win).  That's exactly what the well-rested Saints will hand them, though.  Their third straight prime time loss. 

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-3
Overall: 65-30

Iconic Theme Music

When it was announced that the NHL was returning to ESPN this season, I think people were more excited about the music than anything else.  And with good reason.  ESPN's hockey theme is great and instantly recognizable.  But is it the best sports TV theme music of all time?  Not even close!  It isn't even the best hockey theme music.  So, where does it fall then?  Let's find out.  (Like most of my top 10 lists, this ended up being a top 15.  Just go with it!)

15. Wide World of Sports: Jim McKay's intro is more iconic than the music itself, but for sports fans of a certain age, "Wide World of Sports" was an institution.  And its theme song was the soundtrack of their Saturday afternoons for more than 30 years.

14. MLB on NBC (1980s): NBC had a lot of different themes during the years it had the "Game of the Week," but the mid-80s version is the best.  Plus, that's when Vin Scully was their play-by-play guy, so you'd hear that theme and then that soothing voice!  A can't miss combo!

13. Breakfast at Wimbledon: ESPN has had exclusive rights to Wimbledon for a decade now, which means we no longer get to hear NBC's sensational "Breakfast at Wimbledon" theme.  Which is too bad.  Because it fits the tournament and its location so well.  So classy and elegant.

12. Seoul 1988: It pains me to put this one so low.  Mainly because I love it so much.  I think it's even better than NBC's current Olympic theme (which was also composed by John Williams).  But, since this one was only used for one Olympics, I can't justify ranking it any higher, either.

11. MLB on FOX: Is it great?  No.  Is it easily identifiable?  Yes.  FOX will broadcast its 22nd consecutive World Series next week, and this theme has been the soundtrack of many an October since then.

10. This Week In Baseball: Much like "Wide World of Sports," "This Week In Baseball" is more than just a classic sports program.  It was an institution.  Mel Allen signing off into that incredible music rolling over the closing credits.  Just hearing the music brings me back to my childhood.

9. CBS Olympic Theme: Some people actually prefer the theme music that CBS used for the three Winter Olympics in the 90s to any of the NBC themes.  It was written by a woman named Tamara Kline and may be appreciated more today than it was then.

8. NHL on NBC: As much as hockey fans missed ESPN's theme music, it's not like the intro they heard on NBC for the past 15 years was bad.  In fact, the NHL on NBC theme is just as catchy and just as capable of becoming an ear worm.  And, let's not forget, the NHL on NBC had Doc Emrick, so that's worth some bonus points!

7. Sunday Night Football: Remember when they tried to change the song?  It did NOT go over well!  And they changed it back after one season (was it even one season?).  From Pink to Faith Hill to Carrie Underwood, we've been "Waiting All Day for Sunday Night" for 15 years now.  Of course, it was originally a Joan Jett song, but it'll forever be associated with Sunday Night Football from here on out.

6. Olympic Fanfare: "Olympic Fanfare" was originally written for the 1984 Games, and ABC used it as the broadcast theme that year.  Then NBC started using it in 1992 and it's been their Olympic theme ever since.  Whenever you hear it, you instantly know what time it is.  Then you hear it multiple times a day every day for two and a half weeks to the point you're sick of it.  Until two years later (or six months later in this case) when you do it all over again.

5. March Madness: "One Shining Moment" isn't technically a theme since they only play it once at the end of the tournament.  The March Madness theme is plenty iconic in its own right, though.  How do you not get hyped up when you first hear it during the Selection Show, knowing what the next three weeks will have in store?

4. NHL on ESPN: I'm sure there are those who would put ESPN's NHL theme at No. 1 and are wondering how I could have it ranked so low.  It's great.  I'm not denying that.  It's definitely the best part of ESPN's hockey coverage.  I just think there are three songs that are more iconic.

3. Monday Night Football: "Are you ready for some football?"  Hank Williams Jr. was as synonymous with Monday Night Football in the late 80s and 90s as Al Michaels, Frank Gifford and Dan Dierdorf.  He and the song went over to ESPN after it switched networks, but it wasn't the same.

2. NBA on NBC: John Tesh's "Roundball Rock" lives on as FOX/FS1's theme for its college basketball coverage!  And I'm sure I'm not the only one who had flashbacks of all those memorable Knicks-Bulls games in the 90s during Georgetown's run in the Big East Tournament!  Even though NBC doesn't have the NBA anymore, you can still hear it on the network.  They've used it for Olympic basketball since 2012.  And it was sampled in that Nelly song, too.

1. Hockey Night In Canada: How do you know when a song moves from a sports theme to a national institution?  When said nation hosts the Olympics and they play that song at the Closing Ceremony!  "The Hockey Theme" is so iconic in Canada that it's considered to be the unofficial second national anthem.  When CBC lost the rights to it, they had a nationwide contest to find the new Hockey Night In Canada song.  The new one pales in comparison.  There's only one "Hockey Theme" and it will always be synonymous with Hockey Night In Canada, even if CBC isn't allowed to play it anymore!

Sports to Add In LA

As a part of its Agenda 2020 reforms a few years ago, the IOC started allowing host cities to add sports and events to the Olympics that will be featured in their Games only without necessarily becoming permanent editions.  Tokyo was the first Olympics where this was in place, which is why we saw the return of baseball and softball, as well as skateboarding, surfing, sport climbing and karate.  Japan obviously chose well.  They collected a ton of medals in those sports, including gold in both baseball and softball.

In Paris, skateboarding, surfing and sport climbing will return, while "breaking" (breakdancing) will make its debut.  We'll see it in the Winter Olympics for the first time at the 2026 Milan-Cortina Games, where ski mountaineering will be added to the program.  And the campaigning has already started for both the LA and Brisbane Games, even though they're seven and 11 years away!

Now, I'm lukewarm about the whole adding sports just for one Olympics thing.  I don't think the in and out is helpful either to those sports or to the Olympic Movement.  Sports shouldn't have to constantly be fighting for Olympic status.  They should either be Olympic sports or not.  It shouldn't depend on where a given Olympics is taking place.

But that's what the system is right now, so that's the system we'll have to live with.  And it seems likely that it'll still be in place for LA.  How many sports will be added for LA though?  And which ones?  Let's take a look at some possibilities:

Baseball/Softball: This is Exhibit A of why the new in-and-out (shout out to the Southern California burger chain) approach is stupid.  Because baseball and softball were out of the Olympics for 13 years, only to make a one Olympic cameo before being taking right back off the program.  For what figures to be one Olympics where they're out before once again going right back on.

Everyone knows that baseball and softball will be back in LA.  And, considering how successful Australia has been in each internationally, we'll likely see them in Brisbane, as well.  So that'll be three out of four.  And, unlike the oft-criticized decision to use a single venue in Tokyo, they'll play them in separate facilities in LA.  Baseball can be at Dodger Stadium and softball can be at UCLA.

Skateboarding: Another obvious "yes."  Seeing as skateboarding started in the United States and many of the top skaters are American, there's no way skatekboarding won't be included in LA.  Which would be its third Olympics in a row, effectively making skateboarding a quasi-permanent addition.

Surfing: Unlike Paris and its asinine plan to have surfing 10,000 miles away in Tahiti (they do know that the South of France is a lot closer to Paris, right?), LA can hold its surfing competition on one of their many world famous beaches.  Malibu, Hermosa Beach, Santa Monica, take your pick.  Again, just like baseball/softball and skateboarding, I'd be shocked if surfing's not included in both the 2028 and 2032 Olympics.

Sport Climbing: Frankly, I think they should just rip the band-aid off and make sport climbing a permanent part of the Olympic program!  Because its debut in Tokyo was great, and it's not going anywhere!  In fact, I see sport climbing being one of the added sports at every Summer Games for the foreseeable future.

So, that covers four of the five sports that were added for Tokyo (baseball and softball are a package deal since they have the same international federation).  What about karate?  Yeah, I'd say that one's probably a "no."  Most people thought it would be a one-and-done in Tokyo (another reason why doing it this way is stupid).

I have no idea what they'll do about breaking.  The LA program will likely be finalized before the Paris Games, so they can't use that as a test run.  I'm leaning towards "no," but then again, breakdancing was invented in the U.S. and they're trying to appeal to younger fans with some of these more urban sports.  So, as dumb as I may find Olympic "breaking," I wouldn't be completely surprised to see it in the LA Games.

Then there's E "sports," which will be featured in an international multi-sport competition for the first time at next year's Asian Games.  The IOC has expressed an interest in collaborating with E "sports," but has also shown no indication gaming will becoming a medal event at the Olympics anytime soon.  While it seems possible (likely even) further down the road, 2028 may be too soon.

There are two other sports that I think could be very interesting additions--one team sport and one individual sport.  Whether they ultimately decide to expand the program beyond just the four sports we saw in Tokyo or not, they should both get some serious consideration for the LA Games.  (And, no, football isn't one of them.)

Lacrosse: Of the two, lacrosse seems less likely.  It's a team sport, so that would be an awful lot of athletes to add for just two medal events.  And it's not like they can play every day or even every other day, so I'm not sure how well it would work logistically.  But, lacrosse is a very popular sport in the United States, especially at the high school and college level.  That's the biggest thing it has working for it.

Roller Sports: Roller sports, on the other hand, would make for a very easy addition to the Olympics.  Frankly, I think roller sports should probably be in the Olympics already.  There are actually three disciplines--speed skating, figure skating and inline hockey--so narrowing down which events to include would be tricky.  But roller sports are already included in the Pan Am Games and World Games, so the international participation is clearly there.  And I think they'd be a popular addition to the Olympic program.

It seems unlikely that both lacrosse and roller sports will be added to the 2028 Olympics, so if I had to pick one, I'd say roller sports would have the better shot.  But, I feel confident in saying that we haven't seen the last of Olympic baseball/softball, surfing, skateboarding or sport climbing.  We'll see three of them in Paris.  And I'd expect to see them all in LA (and Brisbane).

The 3-6-6

Ever since the SEC announced they were adding Texas and Oklahoma, I've been intrigued by how they're planning on making the conference schedule when those two join.  I'm intrigued by it because there are a number of different options they seem to be considering, and there's no consensus over what different schools prefer!  They obviously have to have some sort of realignment and figure out the schedule, though, so they're gonna have to pick one of them!

The most obvious solution would be to put Texas and Oklahoma in the West and shift the two easternmost West Division teams, Alabama and Auburn, to the East.  (They'd also likely have to move Missouri to the West to keep the divisions balanced.)  Which both divisions would probably have mixed feelings about.  Sure, it takes two good teams out of the division, but it also means you're not playing Alabama every year (and, more importantly, at home every other year).  Likewise, I'm sure Florida and Georgia would be excited to have the annual matchup while still dreading the thought of playing them every year.

That would create another problem, though.  SEC teams currently play eight conference games--six in their division, one permanent crossover, and one rotating crossover opponent.  Adding Texas and Oklahoma would put seven teams in each division, which would mean that if they keep the eight-game schedule, they'd never face half the league!  Because the only teams they'd face would be their seven division opponents and their permanent crossover.  That doesn't work either!

Either way, I think the SEC will have to go to a nine-game conference schedule.  Last season's 10-game, conference-only schedule was so well-received that fans want to see them play each other more often, not less.  (Teams in opposite divisions go more than a decade without visiting each other's campuses.)  That would also give them an extra week's worth of conference games for the SEC's new TV contract.

I'm sure there will be some push back regarding the ninth conference game, which they'd all lose a non-conference game every season...and half of them would lose a home game every other year (as well as there being a guaranteed eight additional losses across the league).  That lost home game would almost certainly be a guarantee game against an FCS or non-Power 5 opponent, which they'll have to exchange for a conference matchup against a much stronger team.  However, the powers-that-be should win out and the ninth conference game should be added.

Although, simply adding a ninth game to accommodate Texas and Oklahoma but otherwise keeping the same schedule wouldn't change the frequency with which you play teams in the other division.  Because that ninth game would simply be your seventh division game.  You'd still have your permanent crossover and just the one rotating opponent, which would now be a seven-team rotation instead of six, so you'd actually go longer between games.  So I don't think that's the best option, either. 

Some people have suggested they just drop divisions altogether, but there's some concern about that, too.  Not only would it be a drastic step, it would potentially create a situation where the SEC Championship Game is a regular season rematch.  That's still technically a possibility now, but the fear is it would happen far more frequently.

One of the options that I saw eliminated the divisions, but not entirely.  Instead, the teams were grouped into four four-team scheduling pods, where they play the three teams in their pod every year, as well as two teams from each of the other three pods.  It's similar to what the WAC did during those few years it had 16 teams before the Mountain West schools broke away.

However, the pods could end up being very imbalanced, especially if they were based strictly on geography.  It would also mean that some rivalry games between teams not in the same pod wouldn't be played every year.  Although, the advantage is that teams would cycle through the entire league more often, and under this format, you'd visit everybody's campus at least once in a four-year span.  That's a huge plus.

What I'd like to see, though, is the third option that's being floated around.  It's the 3-6-6 model.  There are no divisions.  No pods.  Instead you have your three designated rivals who you play every year.  You play a home-and-home with six of the other 12, then flip it and play a home-and-home with the other six.  Once again, that guarantees you make a trip to every other campus and everybody comes to you at least once during the four-year cycle, which is actually pretty good for a 16-team league.  And far more frequent than some interdivision matchups happen now, I might add.

It would be easy to preserve rivalries in this format, too.  Sure, you're not gonna be able to keep all of them, but it keeps the most important games that schools wouldn't be willing to trade.  (And let's not forget, some SEC schools' biggest rivalry game isn't against another SEC team...it's against the ACC school in their state!)  I'm not just talking about the obvious Auburn-Alabama, Florida-Georgia and Texas-Oklahoma, either.  I'm talking about the annual games like Alabama-Tennessee and Auburn-Georgia that are incredibly important to the fan bases, as well as the TV-friendly matchups like LSU-Texas A&M or the newly-revived Texas-Texas A&M matchup.

Another nice thing about the 3-6-6 model is that it can also be used for basketball.  The obvious difference is that in basketball you play everybody every year, but this would make determining your home-and-home opponents very easy.  You play a home-and-home with your three permanent football opponents and flip your home and away with the other 12 every other year.

Obviously some of the more attractive football games aren't as attractive in basketball.  But that's less of a concern when you're already guaranteed to play the entire league at least once anyway.  And, whether it's football or basketball, I'm not sure fans necessarily care how good each team is when you have a rivalry game like Texas-Oklahoma or Florida-Georgia.  Those are basketball games that the schools would still want to guarantee take place in their building every year no matter what.

Same thing with baseball and softball, sports where the SEC was already the best and will only get stronger.  The schedule model is a little different in those sports, but they still have conference opponents they won't play.  But the 3-6-6 model would guarantee that they face their three designated rivals every year regardless.

So, the way I see it, the 3-6-6 model is the way to go.  The logistics of who qualifies for the SEC Championship Game would obviously have to be worked out, but I think the SEC Presidents and Athletic Directors who may be hesitant will be willing to jump on board once the idea of a guaranteed home game against everyone in the league at least once in a four-year period is floated out there.

And, for the record, here's who I would designate as the three permanent opponents under this format, which I really hope is the one they go with:

• Alabama: Auburn, LSU, Tennessee
• Arkansas: Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
• Auburn: Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi
• Florida: Georgia, Kentucky, Tennessee
• Georgia: Auburn, Florida, Mississippi State
• Kentucky: Florida, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
• LSU: Alabama, Texas, Texas A&M
• Mississippi: Auburn, Mississippi State, Missouri
• Mississippi State: Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina
• Missouri: Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma
• Oklahoma: Arkansas, Missouri, Texas
• South Carolina: Kentucky, Mississippi State, Vanderbilt
• Tennessee: Alabama, Florida, Vanderbilt
• Texas: LSU, Oklahoma, Texas A&M
• Texas A&M: Arkansas, LSU, Texas
• Vanderbilt: Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee

Picking Football Games, Week 6

Week 6 and we finally get the first byes of the season.  I do like that they pushed the first byes back a little because Week 4 was definitely too early, but I don't like how they extend into December.  Because that's way too late.  You shouldn't have to wait until after Thanksgiving for your bye week, when you'll only have four or five games left.  Also, you've got 32 teams divided into eight divisions of four.  So why can't you just do eight weeks of byes with four teams off in each?

Thursday Night: Tampa Bay (Win)

Dolphins (1-4) vs Jaguars (0-5): Jacksonville-Jacksonville has lost 20 consecutive games.  All of those have been played in the United States.  Now they travel across the pond for their annual "home" game in London (that they, of course, didn't play last year).  They always seem to play better in London for some reason.  I also feel bad for the poor Londoners whose only experience with American football this season features the Jets, Falcons, Dolphins and Jaguars.  (Side note: It looks like there'll also be a game in Germany next season, which I think is awesome!)

Packers (4-1) at Bears (3-2): Green Bay-Remember when everybody was freaking out after the Packers got their butts kicked by the Saints in Week 1?  Aaron Rodgers said then that it was just a bad week, and that certainly has proven to be the case.  It hasn't been pretty over the past couple of last weeks.  The Cincinnati game was downright ugly.  But the Packers have won them.  Four straight heading into the first matchup of the season with their biggest rivals.  Make that five straight.

Bengals (3-2) at Lions (0-5): Cincinnati-If the Bengals played in the NFC North, they'd be in first place.  Cincinnati concludes its tour through the division with a trip to Detroit.  Hopefully, this one doesn't come down to kicking!  That was ridiculous and incredible all at once last week!  Fortunately, Ford Field is indoors, so the wind won't be a problem.  And, frankly, the game shouldn't come down to a late field goal anyway.

Texans (1-4) at Colts (1-4): Indianapolis-Ah, an AFC South division game!  The NFL at its best!  I kid, of course, because the AFC South is so bad.  But, since the division winner is guaranteed a playoff berth, they're actually the most important games on the schedule.  Especially since the first-place Titans are just 3-2 and have a tough matchup this week.  So the winner of this one could only be one-game out.  That team should be the Colts, who are better than the Texans.

Rams (4-1) at Giants (1-4): Rams-I was skeptical of the Matthew Stafford-Jared Goff trade, but it sure looks like the Rams knew what they were doing.  The fact that Stafford has a great supporting cast around him certainly helps, too, but he's given the Rams everything they could've asked for so far.  I think it's between them and Dallas for the best team in the NFC.  The Giants, meanwhile, are 1-4 and don't have Saquon.  Another long season appears to be ahead.

Chiefs (2-3) at Washington (2-3): Kansas City-Two weeks ago, Kansas City went into Philadelphia with a sub-.500 record and put up 42 points on the Eagles.  Now they're under .500 again after getting completely outplayed by the Bills last Sunday night.  Although, it should be noted that the Chiefs' three losses are to Baltimore, Buffalo and the Chargers, who just might be the three best teams in the AFC.  Point is, they're all better than Washington.

Vikings (2-3) at Panthers (3-2): Carolina-The Panthers have come back down to earth, losing two straight after starting 3-0.  Last week in particular was a reality check.  Because if they really are as good as they want people to believe, beating the Eagles at home shouldn't be a problem.  Minnesota, meanwhile, is going in the opposite direction.  They started 0-2, but have won two of three since.  So a Vikings win isn't out of the question here.  But I think a Panthers victory is more likely.

Chargers (4-1) at Ravens (4-1): Chargers-Why is this game at 1:00?  Why wasn't it flexed into Sunday night?  Or at least into the national window (even if it wasn't gonna replace Cowboys-Patriots)?  Isn't that the whole point of flex scheduling?  America deserves to see the two best teams in the AFC.  Not just the regional audiences in Southern California and Baltimore.

Cardinals (5-0) at Browns (3-2): Cleveland-Arizona's the last undefeated team in the NFL, but maybe not for much longer.  I have a feeling the '72 Dolphins will be popping the champagne after this one.  Because I really have a feeling the Browns are gonna win this one.  Cleveland beat Minnesota 14-7, then almost beat the Chargers in that 47-42 last week.  Which means they're perfectly comfortable playing any style of game, which is the mark of a good team.

Raiders (3-2) at Broncos (3-2): Las Vegas-That situation with Jon Gruden's emails sure spiraled out of control fast, didn't it?  Not that I'm surprised he resigned, since it sure seemed like it was headed that way.  I'm curious to see how the Raiders respond, especially after losing Gruden's final two games as head coach.  And they didn't look good last week at all.  Things don't look very good in Las Vegas long-term, but things like this have a way of making teams rally, which is what I think will happen this week in Denver.

Cowboys (4-1) at Patriots (2-3): Dallas-Dallas goes into New England as a favorite.  I mean, they should, but it's still a weird thing to see.  The Cowboys are really good, though.  I keep saying it because it's true.  As long as Dak and Zeke stay healthy, Dallas has the NFC East in the bag.  The Patriots, meanwhile, barely beat Houston last week.

Seahawks (2-3) at Steelers (2-3): Pittsburgh-It's Seattle's first game in a really long time without Russell Wilson, and I'm very curious to see how the Seahawks do without him.  Geno Smith was fine last week, but coming into the game is a very different situation than getting the first-team snaps all week.  This is also a really big game for Pittsburgh, which has a chance to go into its bye with a .500 record, which is something they absolutely would've signed up for after starting 1-3.

Bills (4-1) at Titans (3-2): Tennessee-Last week, the Bills made a statement.  There's really no other way to describe that dominant performance in Kansas City.  This week, they'd like to make another one.  Especially after all the craziness that happened when these two met last year with the Titans getting COVID and the multiple postponements and the game finally being played on Tuesday.  Tennessee won that one handily.  For some reason, I think they'll beat Buffalo again.  It won't be a blowout this time, but I have a feeling the Titans will win.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-4
Overall: 54-27

Kyrie the Idiot

I've already written more blog posts than I would like about idiot athletes who refuse to get the COVID vaccine and their ridiculous "reasons" why.  But here I go again with another one!  This time it's about Kyrie Irving, who's clearly putting that one year of a Duke education to good use!  And for what exactly?

My favorite part of the whole saga is how the Nets went out of their way to get their practice facility declared an office building just so he'd be allowed to enter...only for them to reverse course days later!  I wouldn't be surprised if that was because they got a little nudge either from the NBA or from the other Nets players, who would understandably wonder why someone who isn't allowed to play in games would be allowed to practice as if everything was normal.  Or both.

The Nets' responses to questions about Irving's vaccination status have been particularly amusing, too.  They were effectively saying "No comment" while implying everything they needed to.  As they correctly pointed out, they're not legally allowed to publicly disclose his vaccination status.  But, as GM Sean Marks also said, "Well, if he was vaccinated, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  I think that's probably pretty clear."

Marks said that he and owner Joe Tsai were the ones who ultimately made the decision to bench Irving, but again, what else could they do?  The New York City vaccine mandate isn't going away anytime soon, so he wasn't gonna be allowed to play in all 41 home games or both road games against the Knicks regardless.  So that's at least 43 of 82 games he would've had to miss no matter what.  And that doesn't include road games in any other cities that have their own vaccine mandates.

That means he'll play, at most, 39 games this season.  He isn't hurt, but he's still guaranteed to miss more than half their games.  Voluntarily.  So, frankly, what would've been the point of him practicing when he'd be in and out of the lineup based on where the next game is?  How can you form any sort of cohesion that way?

Some might argue that there's still value in him playing as many games as he can, whatever that number may be.  I'm not sure I necessarily agree with that.  Because it's not like he's battling back from an injury and coming back at the end of the season to play X number of games down the stretch.  This would be a situation where he's allowed to play three games because they played the Texas teams on the road, then they came home and he had to miss four, then they went to Florida and he was able to play in those two games, then sat out two more because they were back at home. 

Are they a better team with him?  Of course!  But him being away from the team entirely probably is better for all involved.  Because this way the team can move on without the constant disruptions to the lineup based on his eligibility to play on a given night.  I'm sure it wouldn't exactly be the most comfortable situation in the locker room, either.

They flirted with the idea of letting him be a part-time player and explored the possibility of having him come off the bench in the road games he is eligible for before ultimately deciding to just keep him home entirely until he complies with the vaccine mandate, which doesn't seem likely anytime soon!  Marks addressed that part of the situation, too.  He said, "Kyrie has made a personal choice, and we respect his individual right to choose.  Currently the choice restricts his ability to be a full-time member of the team, and we will not permit any member of our team to participate with part-time availability."

You've gotta give the NBA credit, too.  They can't require players to get vaccinated, but they can withhold their pay if they miss games because they aren't.  Which is exactly what they're doing here.  Irving won't be paid for any games he misses, a number that, as things currently stand, is already at 43...and likely to go up!  He'll lose $380,000 per game.  That's at least $16.3 million total.  If he doesn't play at all this season, it could mean his entire $35 million salary (although the Nets have indicated they'll still pay him for road games he misses since he's technically allowed to play in those).

He finally broke his silence and indicated he doesn't care about the money.  He also confirmed that he is indeed not vaccinated (which everyone figured out for themselves already), calling it a "personal choice" and citing a bunch of ridiculous "reasons" for his decision..."reasons" which were immediately called out by the Timberwolves' Karl-Anthony Towns, whose mother died of COVID.

Whether he cares about the money or not is irrelevant.  That doesn't make his decision any less selfish.  Irving has made this all about him.  Not just his stance on the vaccine, but his availability.  And his availability affects every other member of the team.  A very good team that realistically thinks it can win a championship, but must do so without its starting point guard.  Who isn't injured.  He's completely healthy, in fact.  But he can't play nonetheless.  Because of a choice he made.  So, yeah, it's a selfish move.

Irving also encouraged people to "do their own research" before making their own decision about whether to get vaccinated or not.  And, I'm sorry, but that whole "do your own research" thing just shows how dumb some celebrities actually are!  They probably think they're helping, but they're actually making things worse.  They're trying to defend their own decision, but look incredibly stupid while doing so.  What "research" are people possibly going to do on their own that has better information than what the doctors and scientists who specialize in this sort of thing (you know, actual experts, not Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend) are saying? 

And while I'm at it, also stop saying that you "aren't anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine" in these statements.  Because that sounds just as dumb!  Voluntarily not getting vaccinated is obviously a choice!  Thus, whether you intend to or not, you're coming down on one side of that debate.  It's pretty clear that if you were actually pro-vaccine, you'd have already gotten a shot and wouldn't be trying to explain why you haven't.  (OK, tangent over.)

What Kyrie and everyone else who complains about vaccine mandates seem not to understand, either, is that they're completely missing the point.  If you don't want to get vaccinated, that's your choice.  Local governments and private businesses also made their own decision in the interest of public health.  And they have every right to require vaccinations.  You made your choice.  They made theirs.  Just because you don't like theirs, that doesn't make it "unfair" or "illegal."

It's also worth noting that Kyrie the only player who this impacts.  New York and San Francisco are the only cities with vaccine mandates, but every other player on the Knicks and Nets is vaccinated.  So is everybody on the Warriors.  (Andrew Wiggins wasn't, but he's since gotten the shot.)  In fact, the NBA reported a few weeks ago that the vaccination rate among players is at 95 percent league-wide.  Meanwhile, in the NHL, a league that shares a season and arenas with the NBA, there are only four players in the entire league who aren't vaccinated!

We'd all love to get back to a world where COVID doesn't dominate our lives.  In that world, no one would care whether Kyrie Irving's vaccinated or not.  Because it wouldn't matter.  But in the world we currently live in, it very much does.  So the Nets did what they had to do.  They made it clear he either has to get vaccinated or stay home.  That decision should be pretty simple, yet for some reason, it's not!

A Normalish Hockey Season

For the first time since 2018-19, the NHL will play a normal season.  Well, normalish, at least.  They're starting a week later, ending a couple weeks later, and taking an Olympic break, but that's nothing compared to the disruptions of the last two seasons!  What's important is that there'll be 82 games, teams won't just be playing against their own division, and, most importantly, fans will be in the arenas.

Of course, bubble hockey and a shortened season worked for the Tampa Bay Lightning, who won the Stanley Cup twice in nine-and-a-half months.  The Lightning are the first repeat champions since the 1997-98 Red Wings.  Can they become the first to win three Cups in a row since the Islanders' dynasty?  (Frankly, it'll be tough.)

We also say hello to the Seattle Kraken!  I'm excited about the NHL's newest team, even if the threshold for expansion success has been blown completely out of the water by the Golden Knights, who'll be the Kraken's opponent in their inaugural game.  It's unrealistic to think they'll be as good as Vegas was in its first year.  But can they make the playoffs?  Absolutely!  Especially in that division.  (More on that later.)

The Kraken aren't the only new kids on the block.  After 15 years, NBC is out and ESPN and TNT are in.  Frankly, NBC's coverage is a tough act to follow.  It was THAT good!  From its preseason broadcasts, TNT's coverage looks promising, and I love it that ESPN's iconic hockey music is back.  But I don't love that the focus is mainly on streaming.  Especially after there was a hockey game on NLBCSN seemingly every night.

And, let's not forget, the NHL is taking an Olympic break after skipping the 2018 Games.  I'm glad they were able to work this out, even if it required including it in the CBA for it to happen.  The PyeongChang Games were a gigantic missed opportunity, and I think they now understand that.  Hopefully they make up for it in Beijing by giving us the hockey tournament we all deserve.

But that's not until February.  There's plenty of hockey to be played before then.  And it's exciting to be back to quasi-normal, with American and Canadian teams intermingling.  I can't say we're back to the old divisions, though.  Because the Coyotes (and their outstanding new/old logo) moved to the Central so that Seattle can take their place in the Pacific.

Atlantic: Last year's version of the Atlantic featured the teams with the third-, fourth- and seventh-most points in the league.  Carolina has returned to the Met, but Toronto and Montreal are back after spending last season in the all-Canadian North Division.  Thanks to all the pandemic-related realignment, the Lightning are in the same division as the team they beat in the previous season's Stanley Cup Final for the second straight year.  (Like I said, some weird stuff has happened over the last two years.) 

Throw in Boston, and you've got an incredibly top-heavy division.  Only three of them are guaranteed playoff berths, and I've gotta say the Bruins, Leafs and Lightning are the favorites for those.  I also think Montreal will finish ahead of the Panthers, but that really depends on how the Canadiens do without Carey Price.  If they manage to get into the playoffs, though, they could easily do what they did last year again.

Metropolitan: This is the only division that remained mostly in tact last year.  Six of the eight Met teams were in the East last year, and the only significant swap is Boston for Carolina.  The Bruins and Hurricanes are both good teams, so that doesn't change the pecking order that much.  And, seeing as there are six good teams in the Metropolitan Division, the battle for the playoff spots will be intense.

If not for the Lightning, we could be talking about the Islanders as the back-to-back defending champions.  They're a very similar team to Tampa in that it doesn't matter where they finish in the division.  As long as they get into the playoffs, they're a threat.  And making the playoffs shouldn't be a problem.  It shouldn't be a problem for Pittsburgh or Washington, either.  Which leaves the Rangers, Hurricanes and Flyers fighting for fourth place and what should be a playoff spot.  The Rangers are probably another year away, so I'll say Carolina gets that spot.

Central: With the Coyotes making the shift, the Central now has eight teams like the other divisions.  It's also no longer as weak as it was when these teams were last all together in 2019-20.  Colorado won the President's Trophy last season (but lost its goalie).  Winnipeg has been on the verge of doing something big for the last few years.  Dallas was victimized by being in a very strong division last season.  And Chicago added last year's Vezina Trophy winner, who just happens to have never missed the playoffs in his career.

I think the competition in the Central is gonna be intense.  Because you can't forget about the Wild, Blues or Predators, either.  It's really only the division's newcomer--Arizona--who I don't see capable of making a serious playoff run.  I do think that the Avalanche, Jets and Blackhawks are the three strongest teams, though.  But, considering how bad the Pacific is, I can easily see five playoff teams coming out of the Central.  Which is good news for Dallas and Minnesota.

Pacific: Pretty much everyone agrees that the Pacific is the weakest of the four divisions.  And it isn't even close, really.  That's why Seattle can realistically think it has a shot at making the playoffs.  Because this division has more bad teams than good, so third place is definitely reachable.  Will they catch Vegas or Edmonton, though?  No.

It should really come down to a battle between the Knights and Oilers for the top spot.  I also like Calgary for some reason, even though the Flames missed the playoffs last season by finishing fifth in 2021's weakest division--the North.  I just have a feeling it'll be Calgary that Seattle will be battling for that third guaranteed playoff spot.  Because the three California teams and Vancouver will probably struggle again.

Don't ask me why, but I like Boston in the East for some reason.  I can't really explain why.  I just have a feeling about the Bruins.  So I'm going with them instead of the Lightning, Islanders or Leafs.  In the West, I'll take Colorado.  The Avalanche replaced Grubauer with Darcy Kuemper, so I think they'll be OK in goal.  And they've just got too much talent up and down the roster.  In fact, Colorado isn't just my pick in the West.  I'm going with the Avs to lift the Cup.

Picking Football Games, Week 5

Apparently CBS showed the entire country the Jets-Titans overtime instead of the start of Packers-Steelers last week and people were not happy about it.  Social media was flipping out.  I had no idea about any of this until Monday, seeing as I live in New York, so I was getting the end of the Jets game no matter what.  This week, there's no worry about the Jets game running long.  They're playing the morning game in London, so the whole country gets to watch the entire game whether it wants to or not!

Thursday Night: Seattle (Loss)

Jets (1-3) vs Falcons (1-3): Atlanta-The NFL's first London game since 2019 features a Jets team that actually pulled off a pretty solid win last week and a Falcons team that somehow managed to lose to Washington on the last play of the game.  I wish the British fans had two better teams to watch, but it should at least be a competitive game.  Atlanta's less bad, so I'll go with them.  (Also, I never noticed it until now, but I'm sure it's not a coincidence they went over on a week when there's no Premier League.)

Packers (3-1) at Bengals (3-1): Green Bay-Cincinnati barely beat Jacksonville and probably should've lost to the Jaguars.  But the Bengals pulled it out, moved to 3-1 and stayed tied atop the AFC North.  The Packers present a much different challenge, though.  Green Bay hasn't played its best yet, but is also getting the job done.  And they're the superior team here, so we should see the Packers sitting at 4-1 at week's end.

Lions (0-4) at Vikings (1-3): Minnesota-Now it's down to just the Lions and Jaguars as the last two winless teams in the league.  Although, to be honest, Jacksonville is leaps and bounds better than Detroit at the moment.  This certainly isn't what Jared Goff was expecting.  The Vikings, meanwhile, are better than their record.  And even that record won't look nearly as bad after they manhandle the Lions as expected.

Broncos (3-1) at Steelers (1-3): Pittsburgh-Man, the Steelers need a win!  Badly!  They haven't just lost three straight, they haven't looked good doing it.  Meanwhile, the rest of the AFC North has been winning, and they already find themselves two games out of first after just four weeks.  Fortunately, they've got back-to-back home games before their bye, so they have a reasonable chance of getting to 3-3.  They can't lose to the Broncos, though.

Dolphins (1-3) at Buccaneers (3-1): Tampa Bay-Was there really any doubt that Brady would win in his return to New England?  And, I know what he said about it being just another game, but I don't really buy it.  The good news is the Patriots game is over and the Bucs can simply focus on the rest of the season.  Although, of course, the rest of the season starts with the team that always gave Brady problems when he was in New England.  Regardless, he should find a way to win this one and get Tampa to 4-1.

Saints (2-2) at Washington (2-2): New Orleans-New Orleans finally got to play at home...and lost to the Giants!  That was, in a word, unexpected.  Maybe they're more comfortable on the road, which would mean it's a good thing that they're in Washington this week.  Washington's 2-2, but their wins are over the Giants and Falcons, so take that record as you will.

Eagles (1-3) at Panthers (3-1): Carolina-I'm still not completely sold on Carolina, but I've got to give credit where it's due, and the Panthers certainly deserve some.  Even though they lost last week, they gave the Cowboys all they could handle.  Which is more than I can say the Eagles did when they played Dallas.  I'm not saying how you play against Dallas is any sort of benchmark for the quality of a team, but it does offer a direct comparison between these two.  And right now, Carolina's just better.

Titans (2-2) at Jaguars (0-4): Tennessee-Am I the only one who doesn't get the Tennessee Titans?  They go into Seattle, have that great comeback and beat the Seahawks, then they lose to the Jets in overtime!  Fortunately, they play in the AFC South, so that loss shouldn't hurt them too much.  But another road loss to a winless team certainly will.  Especially with all the drama that's surrounded the Jaguars and coach Urban Meyer over the past week.

Patriots (1-3) at Texans (1-3): New England-Mac Jones opened a lot of people's eyes on Sunday night.  The Patriots might've lost the game, but they'll be winners in the long run.  They'll be the Patriots again before long.  And this week, they should snap their two-game losing streak.

Bears (2-2) at Raiders (3-1): Las Vegas-Even though they lost and, frankly, got outplayed by the Chargers, there were still a lot of good things to take away from the Raiders' effort on Monday night.  Mostly, they gave us every reason to believe their 3-0 start wasn't a fluke and they'll be in it for the long run.  With that being said, considering how competitive the AFC West figures to be this season, they can't afford a home loss to the Bears.

Browns (3-1) at Chargers (3-1): Chargers-They couldn't stop talking about how good they think the Chargers are during the Monday night game last week.  While there's no denying they're good, and that their wins over the Chiefs and Raiders were impressive, it might be a little premature to anoint them the best team in the AFC.  Now they get another good team.  If they do the same thing to the Browns, I might be convinced.

Giants (1-3) at Cowboys (3-1): Dallas-It was a Week 5 home game against the Giants that Dak Prescott destroyed his ankle and the Cowboys' 2021 season.  Almost exactly a year later, Dallas hosts the Giants again and Dak isn't just the odds-on favorite for Comeback Player of the Year, he's an MVP candidate.  And the Cowboys are showing everyone what type of a team they can be when everybody's healthy.

49ers (2-2) at Cardinals (4-0): Arizona-Raise your hand if you had Arizona as the last undefeated team in football.  Anybody?  I didn't think so!  Yet, here we are, with the Cardinals sitting at 4-0 and scoring at least 30 points in all four games.  Will it last?  Probably not.  (I don't even think they're the best team in their own division.)  Will it last at least one more week?  That seems likely.

Bills (3-1) at Chiefs (2-2): Kansas City-We've got a rematch of last season's AFC Championship Game on Sunday night.  The Chiefs rebounded after their back-to-back losses by putting up 42 points against the Eagles, which still wasn't enough to get them out of last place in the AFC West!  The Bills, meanwhile, already enjoy a two-game division lead after winning three straight, two by shutout.  They won't shut out the Chiefs.  That much is for sure.  In fact, they probably won't even win.

Colts (1-3) at Ravens (3-1): Baltimore-First it was the Raiders who got a ridiculously early second Monday night game.  Now it's the Ravens.  This is Baltimore's fifth game, and it's already the third time they've been in prime time (plus a 4:30 game last week).  In the first two, they played really well in an OT loss to the Raiders and a win over the Chiefs.  This one shouldn't be as close as those two were.  The Colts should be outclassed and overmatched.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 41-24

Should He Stay or Should He Go

"Should he stay or should he go?" is a popular game that newspapers and fan sites love to play about their favorite baseball teams at the end of a disappointing season.  That's certainly the case for the New York Yankees, who should look vastly different in 2022 than they did in 2021. 

The 2021 season was, to say the least, frustrating and inconsistent.  There were flashes of what the team was supposed to be, but also far too many stretches where they looked like a Triple-A club.  The result?  Going out with a whimper in the Wild Card Game, extending the streak to 12 consecutive years without a pennant.

Simply put, it isn't working.  And when it's not working, change is in order.  Which is why I expect the 2022 Yankees to feature a number of new faces.  Not everybody needs to go, though.  Here are some of the more prominent Yankees whose futures are up in the air, and whether they deserve to keep their pinstripes or not...

Aaron Boone: GO
Frankly, the decision on whether to fire Boone or not shouldn't be a hard one.  Fans were calling for his head in July, but he got the dreaded "vote of confidence" from Hal Steinbrenner (can we fire Hal instead?).  Yes, he made the playoffs all four years and won 100 games twice.  But he also never won a pennant, and this year's team greatly underachieved.  Worse, he said the rest of the league has "caught up."  No, Aaron, the rest of the league has surpassed the Yankees!  His original four-year contract is up, so they can politely say that his contract "wasn't renewed" instead of saying he was fired.  Either way, Boone should be gone.  Hopefully he takes Phil Nevin with him!

Anthony Rizzo: STAY
Rizzo came up huge during his two months in pinstripes.  He and the Yankees proved to be a perfect fit, and he's already said he wants to come back.  And why wouldn't he?  They would be idiots not to lock him up long-term!  Last offseason, they made re-signing LeMahieu a priority and he ended up staying for six years.  This offseason, they should do the same with Anthony Rizzo.

Luke Voit: GO
What happens with Voit will be almost completely dependent on what happens with Rizzo.  Because I don't see a situation where they keep both first basemen.  And, frankly, Rizzo's the better option.  He's left-handed and better defensively.  Plus, Voit, obviously, had all sorts of injury issues.  If Rizzo comes back, Voit will be shopped.  If he doesn't, Voit stays.

Gleyber Torres: STAY
While some people are ready to give up on Gleyber Torres, I'm not.  I still think there's too much upside there.  I just think it was a matter of the errors getting in his head.  So, they need to decide if he's the shortstop or he's the second baseman.  Because that'll determine what they do in free agency.  It also directly impacts DJ LeMahieu and the next guy on the list.

Gio Urshela: GO
This one comes with an asterisk.  It's really predicated on if the Yankees pursue Corey Seager or any of the other free agent shortstops and move Gleyber to second.  That would shift LeMahieu to third and make Gio expendable.  If they decide to stick with Gleyber at short, Gio coming back to play third wouldn't upset me.  And, they're both arbitration-eligible (not free agents), so it wouldn't surprise me at all to see them both return.

Joey Gallo: GO
I'll admit I was excited about the Gallo trade.  On paper, it seemed like a perfect fit.  But there were far too many lows and not nearly enough highs during his two months in the Bronx.  And he's simply not worth what they'll need to pay him in arbitration.  Not with Aaron Hicks expected back to play center field next season, and especially not when they'll have to pay Aaron Judge, either in arbitration or in a long-term deal before he hits free agency in 2023.  So, it's not that I would be opposed to Gallo coming back.  It's just that he's more expendable.

Brett Gardner: STAY
Gardner has a standing offer for a one-year contract at this point, so I expect him to be back once again.  And, frankly, it's a good thing he has one.  Because he's the only outfielder on the team who can seem to stay healthy!  Don't forget, Gardner's standing one-year contract offer is to be the fourth outfielder and a defensive replacement.  He's ended up playing more than expected because everyone else keeps getting hurt, but if he's ever able to actually be the fourth outfielder/pinch runner he's intended to be, fans would be less up-in-arms about the last link to the 2009 champs still being on the roster.

Clint Frazier: GO
At what point do you accept the fact that the Clint Frazier thing didn't work out and cut your losses?  It's not entirely his fault.  He just can't stay on the field!  But that's a problem.  They still think he's a potential All*Star, and he very well might be.  But I think even Clint Frazier would tell you that he needs a change of scenery.

Miguel Andujar: GO
Andujar's a different story than Frazier.  He's still got a lot of upside (especially now that he's become a capable left fielder).  They just don't have a place to play him!  So, instead of making him languish in Scranton, sell high while he still has trade value.

Corey Kluber: GO
Taking a flier on Corey Kluber last winter wasn't a bad idea.  And it did pay off to an extent.  He threw a no-hitter after all!  But he went on the IL right after that and wasn't nearly as good when he returned.  Again, it was worth giving it a shot, especially considering what the state of the rotation entering the 2021 season was.  The rotation is in a much better place entering 2022, which makes Kluber unnecessary.

Jameson Taillon: STAY
"If Kluber's unnecessary, how come you're keeping Taillon?," you might ask.  Well, let me explain.  Other than the obvious facts that Taillon is younger and making less money, he was arguably the Yankees' best pitcher at stretches this season, and he's proven to be completely over his Tommy John surgery.  So, yes, I'm keeping Taillon as the fifth guy to go along with Cole, Severino, Montgomery and German.

Chad Green: STAY
Green isn't going anywhere.  He isn't a free agent until after the 2022 season.  But he is eligible for arbitration and, theoretically, due a hefty raise.  Which he deserves!  The Yankees bullpen seems like it's full of interchangeable parts, which is true to an extent.  But those interchangeable parts are what get you to Green and Chapman.  And, with Zack Britton having Tommy John surgery, Green is clearly the eighth-inning guy in front of Chapman next season.

Darren O'Day: GO
You didn't even remember Darren O'Day was on the Yankees, did you?  That's because he pitched in a grand total of 12 games before landing on the IL for the rest of the season.  He's 38 years old and has indicated he might retire.  Even if he doesn't, I can pretty much guarantee he won't be wearing pinstripes in 2022.

2021 MLB Playoff Preview

The MLB playoffs are here, and, personally, I'm glad we've gone back to the old way!  Last year's expanded postseason with the best-of-three first round was probably a test-run to see how it went with the intention of making it permanent.  Perhaps as early as next season.  So, this could very well be the last time we see five teams per league with a single-game Wild Card round.

What I'm really glad about, however, is the return of the previous schedule after last year's series were played without days off since there was no travel (and so they could cram the best-of-three Wild Card Series in).  Playing seven days in a row really affected Houston and Atlanta in the LCS.  They had exhausted bullpens!  Going back to the 2-2-1 and 2-3-2 is much fairer.  It gives teams a chance to reset their pitching.

It's also great to see teams playing in their own parks in front of their own fans again.  I get why they did what they did last season, and I'm grateful there was playoff baseball.  But it didn't feel completely like October baseball.  That's what we saw at Fenway Park and Dodger Stadium over the past two nights, and it's hopefully what we'll see all month.

Rays vs Red Sox: Last season clearly wasn't a 60-game fluke in Champa Bay.  The Rays followed up a World Series appearance by winning 100 games for the first time in franchise history.  And they really were the best team in the American League for most of the year.  There's very little they don't do well.  We've always known they can pitch, but now they can hit, too.  Which makes them that much harder to beat.

Boston sees Tampa Bay enough to not be intimidated by them, though.  And the Red Sox certainly have the lineup to go toe-to-toe with them.  But do they have enough pitching to match up?  In the rotation, with Sale, Eovaldi and Pivetta, they do.  In the bullpen?  Not so much!  That bullpen is Boston's Achilles heel, and it will be what makes or breaks this series for the Red Sox.

At the end of the Wild Card Game, they brought up the stat that the Red Sox have now won nine of their last 10 postseason games (the only loss was that 18-inning classic in the 2018 World Series).  That streak likely comes to an end here.  Because as well as Boston knows Tampa Bay, the Rays know them just as well.  So the fact that Tampa is simply the better team will be the deciding factor.  Rays in five.

Astros vs White Sox: Can the Astros make it five consecutive trips to the ALCS?  Or will the talent-laden and fun-to-watch White Sox keep their dream season going?  Frankly, I have no idea!  We've known this would be the matchup since mid-September, and it's the one I've been looking forward to the most!  Because these teams are so evenly-matched and the differences between them are so slight that I can truly see it going either way.

Houston's core has obviously been there and done that plenty of times before.  And that playoff experience could end up playing huge dividends.  The offense will almost certainly be the key to their success.  They led the Majors in batting average, hits and runs scored this season.  So you know they'll put some runs on the board.  Like Boston, though, the question is whether the offense will be able to score more than the pitching staff gives up.

As for the White Sox, I, like many, saw this season coming.  Too much good, young talent on the South Side, and bringing in Tony LaRussa, which looked crazy at the time, looks brilliant now.  They feel like they've got a lot to prove, too.  They ran away with a weak AL Central, so some people question how good the White Sox really are.  Well, they're about to show everybody.  Because, by having that huge lead and a Hall of Fame manager, this team was able to rest up for the games that really matter.  White Sox in four.

Giants vs Dodgers: Are you kidding me?!  The Giants won 107 games.  The Dodgers won 106.  One of them will be eliminated in the Division Series!  Oh, yeah, and they're also archrivals who are meeting in the official postseason for the first time (although, they also met in an NL tiebreaker game in 1962, as well as the Bobby Thomson series in 1951).  So, needless to say, it'll be worth it to stay up and watch as many of these 10:00 games as there are.

My preseason World Series pick was the Dodgers, and I have no reason to change that pick now.  They don't have Kershaw and will only have Scherzer once since he pitched the Wild Card Game.  OK.  Big deal.  So they'll just have to settle for Walker Buehler and 20-game winner Julio Urias in Games 1 and 2.  Plus, after last year, they've suddenly got all this playoff mojo.  They've gone from finding ways to lose playoff games late to finding ways to win them.

But...they finished second in the NL West this season.  That's because the Giants had a historic season.  I'm not entirely sure how they won 107 games, but they did, so they can't be easily dismissed.  This is gonna be a great series between two teams that don't like each other very much.  And don't be surprised if the winner doesn't just win the NL pennant, but wins the whole damn thing!  Dodgers in five.

Brewers vs Braves: Had this series been played in June, I would've said the Braves win it no problem.  That was before Atlanta had all of those injuries, of course.  Nevertheless, the Braves retooled big time at the trade deadline and ended up winning the NL East yet again.  Are they as good as they were last year, when they led the Dodgers 3-1 in the NLCS?  No.  But don't think the fact that they have just 88 wins compared to the Brewers' 95 is relevant, either.  Because the Braves are more than capable of winning this series.

Frankly, I'm not entirely sure how the Brewers won 95 games or how they won the NL Central going away.  A lot of it probably had to do with their pitching, and Milwaukee does have three dominant starters in front of a dominant Josh Hader.  Losing Devin Williams will certainly hurt, though.  I also question whether the Brewers will be able to muster enough offense.

So, call me crazy, but I think the Braves win this series.  I'm not entirely sure why I think so.  But they've got a chip on their shoulder after last year, and they also probably want to make people shut up about how "bad" the NL East is.  Atlanta relies on its postseason experience and pulls this one out.  Braves in four.

Of the eight teams remaining, I can really see five of them going all the way.  There are two that I really have a feeling about, though.  And that's why Dodgers-White Sox is my World Series pick.  With the Dodgers becoming the first team since the 1998-2000 Yankees to win back-to-back championships.