2022: The Year In Sports

This is my final blog post of 2022.  In the past, I've done my year-in-review as some sort of countdown (usually the games of the year), but always end up missing something!  So, this year I've decided to do it a little differently.  I'm gonna break things down month-by-month, which will hopefully allow me to highlight all of the important events/stories/games.

January: It didn't take long for us to get our Game of the Year, that incredible Chiefs-Bills AFC Divisional Playoff in Kansas City, a game that led to the NFL completely changing its playoff overtime rules!  Then we had the Novak Djokovic Australian Open saga.  He first wasn't allowed into Australia because of his status as an unvaccinated foreigner, got a temporary injunction so that he could play, then, finally, was deported and given a three-year ban on entering the country by the Australian government (they won't enforce the ban and he'll be able to enter the 2023 tournament). 

February: We had our first-ever simultaneous Super Bowl/Winter Olympics, which ended up being a great day for NBC!  The Rams won the Super Bowl at home (becoming the second straight team to do that), then it was off to Beijing for the Olympics.  An Olympics that was controversial because of its location, we got perhaps the biggest sports controversy of the year when Russian figure skater Kamila Valiyeva failed a drug test, but was still allowed to compete, leading to a dramatic women's free skate where she completely fell apart and finished fourth.  Shortly after the Olympics ended, Russia invaded Ukraine, which would have a long-lasting impact on the rest of the sports year, including Brittney Griner's arrest in said country.

March: The ridiculous and longer-than-it-should've-been MLB lockout finally ended, preserving the 162-game season the day after the owners said they would start cancelling regular season games.  After missing out on the 2018 World Cup, the U.S. Men's National Team officially qualified for the 2022 edition in Qatar.  Saint Peter's became national darlings with their run to the Elite Eight as a 15-seed (MAAC love!).  Also, after a six-week retirement (and landing a job with FOX as its No. 1 game analyst), Tom Brady announced that he would, indeed, return for his 23rd NFL season.

April: Baseball season got underway a week late.  The NBA and NHL both ended the regular season and started the playoffs, as their schedules finally got almost back to normal after two straight COVID disruptions.  Coach K coached his final game against rival North Carolina in the Final Four, with North Carolina going on to lose to Kansas in the championship game.  In the women's NCAA Championship Game, South Carolina beat UConn, which lost the title game for the first time ever.

May: May's traditional standalone sporting spectacles were back to their full, sold-out glory for the first time since 2019!  Horses ran for roses in Louisville and black-eyed Susans in Baltimore, while cars drove 200 laps around the Brickyard in Indianapolis, part of the 1100 miles of racing on Memorial Day weekend that also included NASCAR's Coca-Cola 600.  Baseball season continued, the NBA and Stanley Cup Playoffs were in full swing, and the WNBA started its season amid the dark cloud of Brittney Griner's imprisonment in Russia.

June: After winning two straight Stanley Cups, the Tampa Bay Lightning lost in the Final to Colorado.  The Golden State Warriors, meanwhile, were back on top after beating the Celtics in the NBA Finals.  LIV Golf, the new breakaway circuit backed by the Saudi royal family that lured a number of top golfers away from the PGA, held its first event in London.  Speaking of London, Wimbledon banned all Russian and Belarusian players, and was penalized by the ATP and WTA by having all ranking points stripped from the tournament.  The biggest sports story of June, though, was also by far the most unexpected...UCLA and USC announced they were leaving the Pac-12 for the Big Ten.

July: Two years after it was supposed to host the All*Star Game, Dodger Stadium finally did (and held a wonderful tribute to Jackie Robinson as part of the festivities).  The World Athletics Championships, which got pushed back a year when the Tokyo Olympics were delayed, took place in Eugene, Oregon, the first time the event was ever held in the U.S.  They were shoehorned into an already busy schedule that continued just a few days later when the Commonwealth Games got underway in Birmingham, England.  (Not to be confused with the World Games, which were held in Birmingham, Alabama.)

August: With UCLA and USC now in the fold, the Big Ten signed its new $7 billion TV contract with FOX, CBS and NBC, which will give them an NFL-like all-day schedule of national TV games on Saturdays starting in the fall of 2023.  The biggest on-field event of August was the return of MLB at Field of Dreams, with the Cubs beating the Reds in the second game at the Iowa movie site.  The Little League World Series also expanded to 20 teams and welcomed back international teams after being cancelled entirely in 2020 and only being open to U.S.-based teams in 2021.

September: Announcer roulette was the story of the NFL offseason.  Troy Aikman and Joe Buck both left FOX for ESPN.  FOX promoted No. 2 team Kevin Burkhardt and Greg Olson to replace them as the broadcast crew for this season's Super Bowl.  Al Michaels left Sunday Night Football for Thursday nights, which are now streaming exclusively on Amazon Prime, and Mike Tirico officially moved into the SNF booth as his replacement.  All of the new booths made their debut as the NFL season kicked off.  Week 1 also saw the former Washington Redskins play their first game as the "Commanders."  Serena Williams capped her career at the US Open, were a new men's champion, Carlos Alcaraz was crowed (and became No. 1 in the world).  Roger Federer also called it a career, playing his final match at the Laver Cup.  A'ja Wilson led the Las Vegas Aces to their first WNBA title before heading to Australia with Team USA for the World Cup.

October: Aaron Judge hit his 62nd home run to set the American League record and the Dodgers finished off a 111-win regular season.  MLB's newly-expanded playoffs then got underway, and the format paid immediate dividends, as we got an NLCS between the fifth-seeded Padres and sixth-seeded Phillies.  The NFL resumed having international games with three in London.  And the NHL and NBA, after having three straight seasons impacted by COVID, began their campaigns at the usual time for first time since 2019.

November: An eventful month began with a World Series no-hitter!  Four Astros combined for the second no-hitter in World Series history, 66 years after Don Larsen's perfect game.  Houston would go on to win its first untainted title three days later.  The NFL returned to Mexico City and played its first-ever game in Germany.  Meanwhile, the CFL's Grey Cup between the Toronto Argonauts and Winnipeg Blue Bombers came down to a blocked extra point.  Most significantly, the biggest sporting event of the year, the World Cup, finally got underway in Qatar.

December: In perhaps the greatest World Cup final ever, Lionel Messi and Argentina dethroned defending champion France.  It's not just the final that might've been the best in World Cup history, either.  The final matchday in pretty much every group was full of drama, and the knockout rounds featured multiple comebacks, penalty kick shootouts, and Morocco becoming the first African nation to reach the semifinals.  Brittany Griner was released as part of a prisoner exchange after spending nine months in a Russian jail/penal colony.  And, in a victory for everybody, Congress passed a bill that guarantees equal pay for all U.S. national team members, regardless of gender or sport.

So, there you have it.  The year in sports, 2022.  Did I still miss something?  Almost certainly!  But that's what happens when there are so many great moments.  Just like any other year, and just like we'll see again in 2023.

2022 Joe Brackets Female Athlete of the Year

The other day, I awarded the very prestigious Joe Brackets Male Athlete of the Year award to Aaron Judge.  Now it's time for the Female Athlete of the Year.  My timing actually coincides with the AP, who gave their award to Katie Ledecky in a very close vote.  However, just like with Sports Illustrated's choice for Sportsperson of the Year, I have to disagree.

Ledecky had another outstanding year.  I'm not denying that.  She won four gold medals at the World Championships, dominating the 800 and 1500 freestyles (as usual), then setting short-course world records in those two events later in the summer.  She's deserving.  I'm not saying she isn't.  I just think there's someone else who's more deserving.

WNBA MVP A'ja Wilson was also outstanding in 2022.  She wasn't just MVP, she was also Defensive Player of the Year, and she led the league with 17 double-doubles.  Most importantly, Wilson was WNBA Finals MVP, as the Las Vegas Aces won their first WNBA championship.  She then went to Australia with Team USA picked up another MVP honor at the World Cup, averaging 17.2 points per game for the gold medal-winning Americans.

Iga Swiatek inherited the No. 1 ranking after Ashleigh Barty abruptly announced her retirement after the Australian Open.  She more than proved that she deserved it.  As soon as she became No. 1, Swiatek went on a 37-match winning streak that included her second French Open title.  She also won the US Open for a 21-2 record in Grand Slam play.  Overall, Swiatek was 67-9 in 2022.  Not a bad year!

And how about what Eileen Gu did at the Olympics?  She competed three different freestyle skiing events--and won a medal in all three!  Gu, who represents China and was one of the host country's faces of the Games, more than delivered!  She took gold in the debut of big air, then added another in the halfpipe to go along with a silver in slopestyle to become the first freestyle skier ever to win three medals at the same Winter Olympics.

Gu came very close to getting the nod, but ultimately, she was my runner-up.  Because her two weeks in Beijing, while extraordinary, pale in comparison to the year-long body of work for our winner, who very well may be on her way to becoming one of the all-time greats in her sport.  Sydney McLaughlin.

In 2021, McLaughlin won two gold medals at the Tokyo Olympics and set a world record in the 400 hurdles.  If possible, she was even better in 2022.  McLaughlin was on another level.  She dominated the event, was named World Athlete of the Year, and made it clear she's got much larger goals.

Entering this year, the world record in the women's 400 hurdles was McLaughlin's 51.46 seconds in Tokyo.  At the U.S. Nationals, she ran 51.41!  Then, a month later, on the same Hayward Field track, McLaughlin took nearly a second off that mark...50.68!  That time would've been sixth in the open 400 meters (without hurdles)!

McLauglin's rival Femke Bol was also incredible in 2022.  At the European Championships, she won a historic three gold medals, sweeping the 400 hurdles AND 400, while also taking gold with the Dutch 4x400 relay.  Bol was arguably the second-best women's track performer in the world this year.  Yet, she was only the second-best in her primary event!  She's like all those guys who had the misfortune of doing the same events as Michael Phelps when he was in his prime.  Because, as good as Bol is, she's still a distant second behind Sydney McLaughlin.

How good is McLaughlin?  I'll put it this way.  There are seven sub-52 women's 400 hurdles times in history.  McLaughlin has run six of them (and that 51.90 she ran at the 2021 Olympic Trials, which was the world record at the time, is No. 7 on that list).  And four of those came in 2022!

I wasn't there for her world record.  I'd already left Eugene by that point.  But I can only imagine how crazy that hometown crowd got cheering her on down the home stretch as she obliterated the record she'd set just a month earlier.  This is an athlete who wasn't just living up to the hype that has followed her since she made the Rio Olympic team at 16.  She was exceeding it!  And leaving everyone to wonder what else she'll be able to do.

It isn't just the 400 hurdles, either.  McLaughlin has become a regular member of the American 4x400 relay squad.  At the World Championships, she ran the anchor leg--and split 47.91!--as the U.S. won the gold medal in a world-leading time.  McLaughlin has hinted that she'd eventually like to drop the hurdles and focus on the straight 400.  One can only imagine what her times will look like when/if she switches to the 400 full-time!

That's the craziest thing about Sydney McLaughlin's 2022 season (she also got married this year, BTW...her last name is actually McLaughlin-Levrone).  She might've just been scratching the surface of her potential!  She's only 23 years old and she's already the only woman ever to run the 400 hurdles in under 51 seconds.  There's little doubt she'll run the first sub-50, but how low can she take the record?  And will she try a 400/400 hurdles double?

Every time Sydney McLaughlin races, it's become a must-watch event.  And she performs her best on the biggest stage.  Or at least it seems that way.  There was no bigger stage for her in 2022 than a home World Championships.  Where she delivered two gold medals and world record.  Which is why she's my 2022 Joe Brackets Female Athlete of the Year. 

2022 Joe Brackets Male Athlete of the Year

It's crazy that there's only a week left in 2022!  With the end of the year fast approaching, we've been seeing all of the "Year In Review" and "Best of" lists.  Now it's my turn.  There were a number of great performances in 2022, but only one is worthy of being named Joe Brackets Male Athlete of the Year.

Sports Illustrated went with Stephen Curry, but I did not.  Yes, the Warriors were back on top, with Steph leading them to their first championship in four years.  He was named MVP of both the Western Conference Finals and NBA Finals, as well as the All-Star Game.  An impressive performance, to be sure.  But enough to earn a Male Athlete of the Year nod?  Sadly, no.

Mondo Duplantis, meanwhile, continued to make his case as the best pole vaulter ever.  He broke the world record in March, then did it again at the World Indoor Championships a few weeks later.  Duplantis bettered his own record again in the final event of the final day of the World Outdoor Championships in July.  With all of Hayward Field watching him, he easily cleared 6.21 meters (and probably could've gone higher!).  Oh, yeah, he won the European Championship, too.  The scary thing is Duplantis is only 22 years old!

And I can't forget about Lionel Messi.  His club season at PSG wasn't Messi-like, but he more than made up for it at the World Cup!  He won the Golden Ball after scoring seven goals in seven matches, including two in the final.  Messi also converted a penalty kick in the shootout, as Argentina lifted the World Cup for the first time in 36 years and Messi had the one trophy that he was missing.

Finalist number 4 is Joe Burrow.  The Bengals' run to the Super Bowl was technically part of the 2021 season, but the playoff games were in January, so I'm counting them for this year.  And he was spectacular in Cincinnati's three wins, including road upsets over the No. 1 seed (Tennessee) and the two-time defending AFC champions (Kansas City).  The Super Bowl was another road game, and they almost won that one, too.  He's followed it up with a sensational 2022 regular season, leading the Bengals back to the playoffs and earning his first Pro Bowl nod.

Then there's Rafael Nadal.  As you know, I'm not a fan of Rafa by any stretch of the imagination.  But even I have to respect his becoming the all-time leader in Grand Slam titles.  After winning the Australian and French Opens, Nadal now has 22.  He withdrew from Wimbledon before the semifinal, so his only Grand Slam loss all year came in the fourth round at the US Open.  Simply put, Nadal had one of the best seasons of his career at 36.

However, when I was thinking about whose 2022 story was the best, whose 2022 story is the one that kept everybody talking night after night, whose 2022 season became must-see viewing, it all came back to one man.  The man whose excellence in 2022 will long be remembered.  The man who bet on himself and cashed in big time.  Aaron Judge.

Prior to the season, the Yankees offered Judge, a pending free agent, a seven-year extension worth $213.5 million.  He rejected it...and went on to have a season for the ages!  His reward?  Nine years for $360 million and being named captain of the New York Yankees. 

Judge's pursuit of the American League single-season home run record was well-documented.  But his season was so much more than that!  Judge led the Majors in homers, RBIs and runs scored, and, had his batting average been six points higher, he would've won the AL Triple Crown.  Not only that, he put the Yankees on his back, almost single-handedly winning games when the team was struggling mightily in August.

There's something else that I think is just as important that was often overlooked during that whole ridiculous "Ohtani should be MVP" "debate" during and after the season (Judge got 28 of the 30 votes, BTW, with only the two Angels representatives voting for Ohtani...but, yeah, it's New Yorkers who have the hometown bias!).  Judge is an elite right fielder...who spent most of the year playing center field.  And playing it well!  It was a move first made out of necessity because of how awful Joey Gallo and Aaron Hicks were, but Judge more than held his own at a demanding defensive position while still putting up historic offensive numbers.

But it was his pursuit of the AL home run record that had people talking (and coming out to the ballpark) all season.  Judge's 60th home run started a ninth-inning rally in a come-from-behind win over Pittsburgh at Yankee Stadium.  He tied Roger Maris in Toronto on Sept. 28.  Then, after going nearly a week without homering, he finally broke the record leading off the second game of a doubleheader in Texas on Oct. 4, the second-to-last day of the season.

During his re-introductory press conference at Yankee Stadium last week, Meredith Marakovits joked with Judge that his hitting at least one home run had become such a nightly occurrence that people were disappointed when he went "only" 2-for-3 with two walks and a double in a Yankees win.  That really says all you need to know about his 2022 season.  He had everyone's attention every night, and, more often than not, he delivered.

That's the other than about his remarkable 2022 campaign.  He played in 157 games, and one of the five he missed was the Yankees' last game when they desperately wanted to give him a day off after the record pursuit.  His last off day prior to that one was on August 3.  That's 55 consecutive games over the final two months of the season for a guy who had the pressure not only of a home run chase, but of carrying his underachieving teammates.  None of which seemed to faze him in the slightest.

Oh, yeah, and he did all this while playing in New York as the face of one of the marquee franchises in all of sports.  When Hal Steinbrenner named him captain, it was really more of a formality.  Because he already was.  Aaron Judge wasn't just the team's best player, enjoying a historic record chase that captivated the nation.  He was also the team's leader, in more ways than one.  Yet none of it affected him.  He went out and performed for a team that won 99 games and reached the ALCS...largely because of Judge's exploits.

Just try to imagine how the Yankees' season would've gone had Judge not put up those numbers!  That's obviously why he was the near-unanimous AL MVP and why he won so many Player of the Year awards.  That's what makes his season stand out so much more to me.  Putting up record-setting numbers is one thing.  That would be worthy of accolades all on its own.  But to put up those numbers for a team that really needed them is something else entirely.

For all these reasons, I can't think of anybody else for the 2022 Joe Brackets Male Athlete of the Year.  What Aaron Judge did this season wasn't just historic.  It was necessary.  It truly was a season for the ages.

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 16)

When the NFL made this week's schedule, they had no idea that the three games they scheduled for Christmas Day (and couldn't change) would end up being total duds!  The Rams were even worried that they'd be playing in a half-empty stadium.  With the Christmas Eve slate, though, they hit a home run!  Six of the seven current NFC playoff teams are playing each other!  I know that really was just dumb luck, but still, it worked out pretty well!

Thursday Night: Jacksonville (Win)

Bills (11-3) at Bears (3-11): Buffalo-It's gonna be COLD in Chicago, one of many games this week where you'll know they're playing outdoors in the middle of winter!  Unfortunately for the Bears, they won't be able to use the weather to their advantage.  Not when their opponent is another cold weather, outdoor team that happens to be really good!  The Bills win and wrap up the AFC East.

Saints (5-9) at Browns (6-8): Cleveland-There were four 6-8 teams in the AFC when this week started (Jacksonville is now 7-8).  Cleveland is in that group, which means the Browns still have a shot at the playoffs.  It's incredibly unlikely that they'll make it, but it's still possible.  Just like it's still possible the Saints can win the NFC South.  Again, that doesn't seem likely, but it theoretically can happen.  One of these teams will have its playoff bubble completely popped after this game.  Probably the Saints.

Texans (1-12-1) at Titans (7-7): Tennessee-What's going on with the Titans?  They had a 3.5-game lead five weeks ago, but if they lose to the one-win Texans, that lead will be completely gone and they'll technically be in second place behind Jacksonville.  And Houston sure hasn't looked like a one-win team over the last two games!  They almost beat the Cowboys and they took the Chiefs to overtime.  So, the Titans better be prepared.  What would be even better is if the pre-Week 11 Titans show up.

Seahawks (7-7) at Chiefs (11-3): Kansas City-Kansas City wrapped up its seventh straight AFC West title last week, but it wasn't easy.  They needed overtime against the Texans.  Now they return to Arrowhead for a matchup with the Seahawks.  The Chiefs have no room for a letup, though.  They lost to both the Bills and Bengals, so they need to keep winning and/or get some help if they don't want to be the 3-seed.  So, expect a big game from Mahomes and Co.

Giants (8-5-1) at Vikings (11-3): Minnesota-Now THAT was a comeback!  I was shocked the Vikings were down 33-0 at halftime last week, and I was just as shocked they managed to win in overtime.  That's the way Minnesota's season has gone, though.  The Vikings' point differential is just +2, yet they're eight games over .500!  They've obviously been winning close games (10 of their 11 wins are by single digits), and I don't think that'll change this week.

Bengals (10-4) at Patriots (7-7): Cincinnati-Don't look now, but the Cincinnati Bengals are starting to look like the team that went to the Super Bowl last season again!  They're in sole possession of first place for the first time this season, and they clinched their playoff spot when the Jets lost.  That one-game buffer is huge, too, since they lost the first game to the Ravens (they play in Week 18, almost certainly on Sunday night).  New England's playoff hopes, meanwhile, are dwindling by the day.  And the Patriots certainly don't deserve to make the playoffs after that stupidity at the end of the Raider game!

Lions (7-7) at Panthers (5-9): Detroit-Detroit isn't just one of the hottest teams in the NFL right now.  They're a team you want nothing do with if they do make the playoffs.  Carolina, believe it or not, still has a decent shot at the playoffs, too.  If the Panthers win out, they win the NFC South.  Which is more an indictment of that division than anything positive about Carolina.  Fortunately, we won't have to worry about the Panthers winning the division, since they won't beat the Lions.

Falcons (5-9) at Ravens (9-5): Baltimore-Heading into this week, there were 10 different playoff-clinching scenarios for the Ravens.  (That number's down to seven since three of them involved a Jets-Jaguars tie.)  They can't clinch outright, though.  All of them involve a win or tie and the results of other games.  More significantly, though, after that loss on Sunday, they now trail the Bengals in the division.  So, even though they may not clinch a playoff berth this week even if they win, it's still absolutely imperative that they do if they want that Week 18 game in Cincinnati to be for the division title.

Commanders (7-6-1) at 49ers (10-4): San Francisco-I'm not sure how the 49ers keep winning without a quarterback, but they do.  Is it really all because of their defense?  Anyway, while I still don't think they're at the same level as the Eagles or Cowboys (or even the Vikings), they'll be a tough out in the playoffs.  Washington's playoff life is hanging by a thread.  Fortunately, they have that tie to take them out of all the tiebreakers, but they only lead the Lions and Seahawks by a half-game for the 7-seed.  It's likely they'll no longer be the 7-seed come Christmas morning.

Eagles (13-1) at Cowboys (10-4): Philadelphia-Dallas still clinched a playoff spot even after losing to Jacksonville, but that was still a bad loss.  For multiple reasons.  Most significantly, the Cowboys' chances of winning the NFC East are now virtually nonexistent.  The Eagles, in fact, will clinch the No. 1 seed with two games to go if they win.  So, Dallas obviously needs the victory to prevent that from happening, but all they'd be doing then is delaying the inevitable.  Philadelphia ends the season with two straight home games, so if they hit the road again, it'll be a trip to Phoenix for the Super Bowl.

Raiders (6-8) at Steelers (6-8): Pittsburgh-Franco Harris dying the during the week before his number retirement and the Immaculate Reception 50th anniversary celebration really sucks!  Also, how is his number not retired already?!  Anyway, I like the idea of celebrating that game with a special Christmas Eve Saturday night showcase.  Of course, Saturday night in December in Pittsburgh would mean it'd be cold even without this bomb cyclone.  Kickoff temperature is supposed to be 14 degrees.  That's obviously a huge advantage for the Steelers, who probably won't be stupid enough to try 35 laterals at the end of a tie game!

Packers (6-8) at Dolphins (8-6): Miami-After three straight road losses (two on the West Coast and one in snowy Buffalo), the Dolphins finally return home.  Their playoff position, of course, has become a bit more precarious after those losses, but I think finally being back home will have a major impact.  What was funny at the end of the Monday night game was Joe and Troy talking about the Packers' playoff chances as if they actually still have a shot.  They don't.  And not only will they not make the playoffs, they'll finish with a losing record, which they'll clinch this week.

Broncos (4-10) at Rams (4-10): Rams-This was an intriguing matchup on paper when they made the schedule, so I can see why they wanted to feature the defending champs and a high-profile player in Russell Wilson on Christmas in front of a national audience.  But, considering how the season has gone for both teams, the NFL might have similar concerns about ratings against the NBA as the Rams are having about attendance.  Certainly not the showcase they were hoping for.  Both teams are bad, but the Rams at least know where the end zone is (I think), so they get the nod.

Buccaneers (6-8) at Cardinals (4-10): Tampa Bay-If the Bucs don't win out, we'll be guaranteed to have a sub-.500 NFC South "champion" (hosting an at-least 10-win wild card team in the first round of the playoffs).  Fortunately, Tampa winning out is a very realistic possibility.  They actually looked pretty good for a half against Cincinnati before deciding they wanted the Bengals to win.  Maybe they'll realize that their playoff chances suddenly aren't as good as they were even a few weeks ago and finally start to play like it.

Chargers (8-6) at Colts (4-9-1): Chargers-The Chargers earned back-to-back wins over good teams (Miami and Tennessee) and suddenly, their playoff chances look very promising.  Both of those victories were at home, though.  What they need now is a road win against the Fighting Jeff Saturdays.  If they get it, that will all but lock it up (since they're playing on Monday night, they'll know going in whether they can clinch this week or not).  As for the Colts, the fourth quarter in Dallas and the second half in Minnesota were about as rough as it can get, so let's see if they can put an entire game together!

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 131-92-2 

Saying Farewell In 2022

As we move into the final 10 days of 2022, it's time to start thinking about some year-end lists.  Next week, I'll get to some 2022 superlatives, as well as my athletes of the year, but I want to begin my look back at 2022 with those who said farewell.  Athletes retire in every sport every year, but I can't remember another year when there were so many high-profile retirements in so many different sports.

There was also a very high-profile un-retirement in 2022.  Tom Brady announced that he was retiring a week before the Super Bowl, only to change his mind before the season started and return to the Bucs.  Although, judging by the way he and the team have played this season, he may be second-guessing his decision to come back.  Whether Brady stays retired or turns into the new Brett Favre and we have to go through this every year with him, he's already got his next gig lined up as the lead analyst on FOX.

Brady's buddy Rob Gronkowski, who came out of retirement to join him in Tampa, also retired again.  Gronk has shown no indication that he wants to come back a second time, so I'm assuming retirement No. 2 for him will take.  His is NOT the most notable NFL retirement of 2022, though.  That honor belongs to...

Ben Roethlisberger: Big Ben hung it up after 18 years with the Steelers.  Pittsburgh made the playoffs 12 times during that span, won two Super Bowls, and played in another.  Roethlisberger went 165-81-1 as a starter in the regular season and is ranked among the top 5 in NFL history in both passing yards and completions.  The funny thing is he was never really considered "great," not even when comparing him against his peers.  Regardless, there's no doubt he'll be getting a bust in Canton.

Albert Pujols: Remember when Albert got released by the Angels and we all thought he was done?  Well, I, for one, was thrilled to be proven wrong!  He returned to St. Louis for a farewell tour alongside good friend Yadi Molina.  Two Cardinals legends going out together.  And Albert looked like the Albert of old!  Just when we thought there wasn't any magic left, he won NL Comeback Player of the Year and reached the 700 home run milestone.

Roger Federer: His retirement announcement was classy, dignified and understated.  Would you expect anything less from a man who played with similar grace?  Roger wanted to come back on his terms after various injuries over the past few years, but his body wouldn't let him.  So, in a way, it's a little disappointing that he went out this way.  But, at the same time, it's also perfect.  Because he DID go out on his own terms.  He played a doubles match at the Laver Cup to close out his career.  Roger's chance to say goodbye.

Serena Williams: While careful not to call it "retirement," Serena announced prior to the US Open that she would "transition away from tennis."  Then the entire first week of the US Open turned into a well-deserved celebration of her career.  She has indicated that she may not be entirely done playing, but if she is, that was such a fitting send-off.  Serena Williams isn't just the most influential women's tennis player since Billie Jean King.  She's also one of the best of all-time.  If not THE best!

Sue Bird: Where do I start on Sue Bird?  Drafted No. 1 overall out of UConn in 2002, she spent her entire 20-year career in Seattle and led the Storm to four WNBA titles.  (Fun fact: the Mariners went that entire time without a playoff appearance before finally making it this season...after Bird retired!)  She's widely considered one of the greatest players in WNBA history and was Team USA's starting point guard for two decades, winning five Olympic gold medals and four World Championships in the process.

Allyson Felix: I had front row seats for what was supposed to be her final race--the mixed 4x400 relay final at the World Championships.  As it turns out, that wasn't her final race.  She got called upon to run the first round of the women's 4x400 relay later in the meet.  Then she closed out her career at a low-level meet in LA later in the summer.  And what a career it was!  Over the course of two decades, Allyson Felix went from sprinting prodigy to international star to a voice/advocate for mothers.

Shaun White: He didn't medal at his final Olympics.  He finished fourth.  Then had every other competitor in the men's halfpipe, including the three that beat him, congratulate and thank him.  Shaun White means that much to snowboarding.  The three medalists all did tricks that weren't even thinkable until he moved the sport forward for everybody...and thrust it into the mainstream.  The five-time Olympian and three-time Olympic champion's legacy is secure.

Zdeno Chara: It would be a cliche to say Zdeno Chara left big skates to fill (he's 6'9!), but it's true.  He spent 24 years in the NHL, most of them as the Bruins' captain.  Boston went to three Stanley Cup Finals and lifted the Cup in 2011, making him one of just four European-born captains to lead his team to the title.  Chara's also played more games as a defenseman than anyone in NHL history.  He spent his final season with the Islanders before signing a one-day contract with Boston to retire a Bruin.

The notable retirements weren't limited to just players, either.  A number of men's college basketball coaches (of varying ages) decided to call it a career, as well.  One in particular stands out above the rest.

Mike Krzyzewski: Coach K almost had the perfect ending.  Duke's NCAA Tournament run ended with a loss to archrival North Carolina in the Final Four.  He also lost to North Carolina in his final regular season game, so you know the Tar Heels will love those two little factoids.  That does absolutely nothing to tarnish everything that happened at Duke over 41 seasons from 1980-2022.  Coach K took a middling program and turned it into a national powerhouse.  Five National Championships, 13 Final Fours, 35 NCAA Tournament appearances, 15 ACC Tournament titles, more than 1100 wins.  Oh, and three Olympic gold medals as Head Coach of Team USA--teams that featured entirely NBA players.

And that's just a sampling of the athletes/coaches who called it a career in 2022.  There were others, of course.  But the nine who I just mentioned all left legacies that will lead to their respective sport's Hall of Fame in the not-too-distant future.

Time For a Salary Floor?

Next season, the Mets will be paying Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander a combined $80 million.  $80 million just for two starting pitchers in their late 30s.  That will almost certainly be higher than what some teams spend on their entire 40-man roster.  Which has again led to the questions about how fair that competitive imbalance is.

Major League Baseball is unique among the four major sports in that it's the only one without a salary cap (the NBA supposedly has one, yet teams continue finding creative ways to circumvent it).  Instead, they have the luxury tax, where teams with high payrolls are taxed a percentage of their payroll if they exceed certain thresholds.  They actually added another threshold in the new CBA that's been nicknamed the "Cohen Tax" after Mets owner Steve Cohen, who's shown he has no problem spending money to get high-priced free agents.  (I also think he took the "Cohen Tax" as a challenge rather than a suggested limit.)

The problem with the luxury tax, though, is that whatever's collected from the big spenders is then redistributed to the teams with low payrolls.  So, they're free to keep their payrolls as low as they want (while obviously still paying everyone the Major League minimum) while also getting "competitive balance" money from the high-payroll teams...that they aren't required to invest in improving their own team!  Thus, they have no incentive to do anything differently!

So, the problem with the luxury tax system isn't that teams are free to spend as much as they want on free agents.  All 30 teams are able to do that if they want, which would actually be great for everyone.  And the luxury tax has actually achieved its purpose.  Teams still surpass it, but they do so willingly.  Those that don't want to, meanwhile, are very careful to make sure they don't go over it.

On the flip side, though, the other purpose of the luxury tax is not being achieved.  The whole idea of the revenue distribution is so the teams receiving those funds use them to invest in their teams.  That hasn't happened, though.  Some of those teams have no interest in being competitive.  Instead, they're taking the money and pocketing it.

That's the real issue, and it's one the owners tried to address in the prolonged CBA negotiations during last winter's lockout.  They wanted to put in a salary floor, which would require teams to spend at least that amount on payroll.  The players rejected it, though.  In fact, it was a non-starter for them.  They thought once the owners had a salary floor, a salary cap wouldn't be too far behind, and the players are vehemently opposed to a salary cap.  So, the owners dropped it.

Instead, they put in various apparatuses to discourage tanking.  Chief among them is the draft lottery, guaranteeing that the team with the worst record isn't guaranteed the No. 1 pick the following season.  They also stipulated that teams receiving revenue sharing can't be in the lottery more than two years in a row.  The hope is that this, along with the extra playoff team in each league, will be enough incentive for everybody to at least try to be competitive.

We'll see if those changes have the desired effect, but I'm skeptical.  I think the only way to guarantee spending is a salary floor.  Unfortunately, they can't even broach the subject again until the current CBA expires after the 2026 season.  And the MLBPA has been pretty steadfast in its opposition.

It's not all on the players, of course.  They probably agree that a salary floor would be beneficial on the low end.  But their worry about the luxury tax eventually turning into a salary cap is understandable, especially after they went through several offseasons in a row where the luxury tax turned into a sort of soft cap and the big-name free agents didn't sign deals for what they're worth until right before Spring Training (or not at all).

Besides, there's nothing stopping small market teams from going out and spending.  Everyone understands that the Pirates and A's obviously can't outspend the Yankees or Dodgers, but the owners in Pittsburgh and Oakland choose not to spend at all, which is a big part of the problem.  At the very least, MLB should require teams that receive revenue sharing to use that money on free agents.

Being in a small market can't (and shouldn't) be used as an excuse, either.  Look at the Rays.  They're a small market team that's found a way to be competitive year after year...while playing in a division that includes the Yankees, Red Sox and Blue Jays.  Meanwhile, San Diego's not the biggest city, yet the Padres have somehow managed to find all this money to throw at free agents somewhere (I guess the Chargers leaving and making them the only team in town has really helped on the sponsorship and local media fronts!).

Tampa Bay and San Diego have shown that you can play in a small market and still be competitive.  The Angels and Rangers have proven the opposite can also be true.  They're both always in the mix for big-money free agents.  Texas signed Jacob deGrom this year after getting both Corey Seager and Marcus Semien last year, while the Angels have attracted numerous big names and signed Mike Trout to a massive extension.  Yet neither one of them has come anywhere close to the playoffs recently!

Which brings us back to the original question.  Which would be better: a salary cap or a salary floor?  It depends on who you ask, but I think the general consensus is that competitive balance would be achieved much quicker with a salary floor.  Rather than limiting the spending by the top teams, requiring the teams at the lower end to shell out more would raise salaries across the board and open up so many more options for free agents...both for teams and players.  Those teams still won't be able to get a Judge or Verlander, but they might be able to re-sign one of their own guys who they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.  Likewise, if teams don't have those artificial limitations, players may be more inclined to sign somewhere other than the same five teams without everybody else being priced out.

Ultimately, a salary floor would be the best solution.  Will it happen?  Unlikely.  But if the Mets want to spend $80 million on two starting pitchers, that's their prerogative.  And fans shouldn't be asking why that's OK.  What they should be asking is why it's OK for the Pirates to pay their entire 40-man roster less than that (that's less than $2 million apiece).

What a World Cup!

The World Cup concluded with an outstanding, memorable final that saw Lionel Messi finally lift the trophy.  It's crazy to think that Argentina started the tournament by losing to Saudi Arabia in that very stadium, but I actually think that loss was a good thing.  It lit a fire under their asses and really set the stage for their championship run.

I'll admit to being skeptical about both the choice of Qatar and the late World Cup.  I wasn't sure if playing the tournament in the middle of the European club season would be a good or bad thing.  I ended up being pleasantly surprised, though.  The players were in midseason form, so the quality of play was very high.  And the condensed schedule actually worked out better than I thought it would.

We still had plenty of surprises, too.  Morocco became the first African team to reach the semifinals.  They also became the first Arab team to make it that far, which was incredibly fitting at the first World Cup in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia pulled off that massive upset on the third day of the tournament, knocking off the eventual champions, but they weren't the only team who punched above their weight against one of the marquee teams.  Cameroon beat Brazil.  France lost to Tunisia and had problems with Australia.  Canada outplayed Belgium in a 1-0 loss.  Beating Germany wasn't enough, so Japan beat Spain, too.  The United States was the better team in a 0-0 draw against England.  This was the first World Cup since 1994, in fact, where nobody won all three group games.

And let's talk about how fantastic the final round of group play was!  I can't recall any World Cup that's seen a crazier set of games than what we saw over those four days.  The standings in virtually every group were changing by the minute!  Teams were celebrating goals in the other game and acting like they won even if they lost (or acting like they lost even if they won, but not by enough).

It wasn't just the usual suspects, either, which was another pleasant surprise.  Japan finished first in a group that included Spain and Germany.  Second-ranked Belgium (the most overrated team in the world) didn't get out of the group, either (behind the third- and fourth-place finishers).  Three teams from Asia and two from Africa reached the knockout stage, with two winning their group!

While I often get on FIFA for the stupidity of how their rankings are determined and their reliance on them despite those flaws, seeding the entire tournament based on the rankings sure proved to be the right move.  It created well-balanced groups and probably contributed to that wild final group day.  It also showed that there's some really good soccer being played in places besides Europe and South America...just in time for the 2026 World Cup, when 16 more teams will be invited to the party.

Speaking of 2026, FIFA loved the final day of group matches so much that they're now talking about completely revamping the entire format and not doing 16 groups of three, primarily to maintain the simultaneous final group matches.  There'll be plenty of discussion about that, and I'm curious to see what the final decision is.  It's typical FIFA to not think about these things until well after the fact, though.

Just when we thought that manic finish to group play wouldn't be topped, we got to the knockout round.  Those two quarterfinal games on Dec. 9 might've been the two craziest soccer games I've ever seen back-to-back!  Brazil scored in the first half of extra time, only for Croatia to equalize late and win in penalty kicks.  Then, in the second game, Argentina blew a 2-0 lead with 10 minutes left against the Netherlands before winning in PKs (sound familiar?).

And where do I begin about that final?  I hesitate to call games "the best ever" right away because recency bias is definitely a thing, but it's hard to argue with that claim.  Argentina was rolling, up 2-0 and completely dominating.  Then Mbappe scored twice in 90 seconds!  Messi scored in extra time and we thought that was it.  Only it wasn't.  In PKs, though, Argentina got the job done and got Messi the one trophy he was missing.

Messi rightfully won the Golden Ball as tournament MVP, but he wasn't the only star who played like one.  Mbappe became just the second player ever to score a hat trick in a World Cup final.  Luka Modric reminded us that he's one of the best players on the planet and, even though we only got a limited glimpse of him, Neymar's brilliance was on full display.  Christian Pulisic had a hand in all three American goals, scoring the game-winner against Iran and assisting on the other two.  Cody Gakpo of the Netherlands became a star before our eyes.

Let's not forget what France did, either.  They broke the spell of defending champions failing to get out of the group stage and went all the way to the final, becoming the first nation to make back-to-back finals since Brazil played in three straight from 1994-2002.  After they went down 2-0, they could've folded.  But they didn't.  They fought back twice and nearly became the first team in 60 years to repeat as World Cup champions.  Mbappe's a bona fide star, though, and we definitely haven't seen the last of Les Bleues.

In the end, though, Argentina proved to be the best team, and their title is well-deserved.  Alexi Lalas said it best in the postgame show.  France is a good team with one really great player.  Argentina is a great team with one really great player.  They wanted to win in for their captain, but Messi couldn't do it alone, and they had the talent around him to achieve that goal.  That's what proved to be the difference in the final.

This will go down in history as Messi's World Cup, though.  And you know what?  That's OK.  There's been a lot of talk about "Is he the greatest player ever?"  You couldn't reasonably make that claim unless/until he won a World Cup, however.  Now he has.  And suddenly, Argentina went from not being able to win the big one (they lost three straight World Cup/Copa America finals from 2014-16) to lifting the Copa America and the World Cup within a span of a year and a half.  And Messi, for his part, became, along with Angel DiMaria, one of the first two men's players to win both Olympic gold and the World Cup.

He said that isn't retiring from the National Team, so it's possible we'll see a 39-year-old Messi at a sixth World Cup in North America three-and-a-half years from now.  But, in a way, I kinda wish this was his last game in the white and sky blue stripes.  Because there's no way to top what Argentina just accomplished.  And talk about bookends to your international career!  Olympic gold as a 17-year-old, a World Cup 18 years later!

Argentina's now won three World Cups.  The first was in 1978 at home.  The second was in 1986 with Diego Maradona, the greatest player of his generation.  The third in 2022 with Lionel Messi, the greatest player of his.  Talk about a perfect ending, if this is indeed the end!

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 15)

It's the first of back-to-back Saturday NFL weeks.  Whenever Christmas is on a Sunday, they move the majority of the games to Christmas Eve, and this week we've got an NFL Network Saturday tripleheader as a warmup act.  That Saturday tripleheader is actually pretty good, too.  The Vikings can clinch the division in the early Saturday game, and the Bills can become the first AFC playoff team with a win on Saturday night.  Also, congratulations to the 49ers on winning the NFC West, the first division that's been clinched this season.

Thursday Night: San Francisco (Win)

Colts (4-8-1) at Vikings (10-3): Minnesota-Minnesota has plenty of wiggle room in the NFC North, so last week's loss shouldn't hurt the Vikings' chances of winning the division.  It all but guaranteed they won't get the 1-seed, though.  Now they're two games behind the Eagles with four to play, and two of their losses are to Philadelphia and Dallas.  So, they pretty much know they'll be playing at home on Wild Card Weekend.  That will be a virtual guarantee after they beat the Colts.

Ravens (9-4) at Browns (5-8): Baltimore-Our middle game on Saturday takes us to Cleveland, where the Browns have a chance to really throw a wrench into the AFC North race.  Baltimore and Cincinnati play each other in Week 18, so they'll have a chance to settle the division on the field.  The Browns can play the spoiler, though.  Which would be a fun consolation for a team that isn't gonna make the playoffs.  So, the Ravens need to be on guard.  Which they should be.  They remember what happened right around this time last year, after all.

Dolphins (8-5) at Bills (10-3): Buffalo-Miami just played back-to-back games in California, including a Sunday night game that they got home from at probably about 7 in the morning.  Now they have a quick turnaround for a Saturday night game in cold and snowy Buffalo.  Not exactly the easiest three-game road trip.  It's not like Buffalo in December as a solo road game would be any easier, but they've made it exponentially more difficult.  The Bills wrap up their playoff berth and move to the verge of the AFC East title.

Eagles (12-1) at Bears (3-10): Philadelphia-The Eagles are in, but they've got the Cowboys right on their tail, so they need to keep winning.  They also have more doubters than a 12-1 team probably should, but their offense has gone a long way towards answering some of those critics.  They've scored 40, 35 and 48 points in their last three games.  The Bears' problem is their offense, not their defense, so they may be able to hold the Eagles somewhat in check, though.  Not enough to prevent Philadelphia from going to 13-1, however.

Falcons (5-8) at Saints (4-9): Atlanta-As ridiculous as it sounds, the winner of this game is still very much alive in the NFC South.  It's even possible there could be a three-way tie at 6-8.  The Saints are the only team that can't be involved in that tie.  And that's because New Orleans is not good.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying the Falcons are.  They're just less bad than the Saints.

Lions (6-7) at Jets (7-6): Detroit-Believe it or not, the Lions have very realistic playoff chances.  If they win out and go 10-7, they're probably in.  All four of those games are winnable, but three of them are on the road, starting with a visit to the Jets.  It was Detroit's first trip to MetLife Stadium that made us realize we needed to pay attention this team.  We'll really need to pay attention to them after they win there again and go to 7-7.

Steelers (5-8) at Panthers (5-8): Carolina-Don't look now, but Carolina has won two straight and is suddenly alive in the NFC South.  Things could get really interesting in the worst division in the league over the final three weeks, especially if the 5-8 Panthers can top the 5-8 Steelers.  Pittsburgh has shown flashes of the Steelers teams we've seen over the years, but is still a work-in-progress.  Carolina seems to have more of an identity.  The Panthers win a tight one.

Cowboys (10-3) at Jaguars (5-8): Dallas-There are two ways to look at the Cowboys' effort last week against the Texans.  On one hand, they didn't play well and almost lost to the worst team in the league.  On the other hand, they rallied and found a way to win, which is exactly what championship teams do.  And had they not pulled it out, they'd be in a very different situation.  As it is, they can get their playoff berth out of the way before next week's massive showdown with Philadelphia.

Chiefs (10-3) at Texans (1-11-1): Kansas City-All the Chiefs need to do to clinch their sixth straight AFC West title is beat the worst team in the league...a task that the Dallas Cowboys found out isn't as easy as it seems.  Still, though, you'd have to think Kansas City should be able to take care of the Texans.  They'll also know whether or not the Bills won, which is a huge advantage either way as they battle Buffalo for home field.

Cardinals (4-9) at Broncos (3-10): Denver-Watching Denver this season has been painful.  Just like it was painful watching the Kyler Murray-less Cardinals on Monday.  So, you combine those two things, and you have a game that will probably be excruciating!  It'll also probably be extremely low scoring.  Since the game's outdoors in Denver in December, I'll say it's the Broncos who win it.

Patriots (7-6) at Raiders (5-8): New England-All throughout last week's Monday night game, Joe and Troy kept saying how they didn't think the Patriots weren't a team capable of making a deep playoff run.  I've gotta admit, I agree with them.  But...New England very well could end up in the playoffs, a possibility that becomes even more realistic if they cap this Arizona-Las Vegas trip with a second win.

Titans (7-6) at Chargers (7-6): Tennessee-Last week, we saw the good Chargers.  We also saw the bad Titans.  As a result, these two go into this game with identical 7-6 records.  It's obviously a much bigger game for the Chargers, who are in a five-way wild card race, than the Titans, who will still be in first place regardless of what happens here.  I don't think they can be that bad two weeks in a row, though.  Which is why I'm taking Tennessee in this one.

Bengals (9-4) at Buccaneers (6-7): Cincinnati-Burrow vs. Brady for the first time, with their teams going in completely opposite directions.  The Bengals look very much like a team that could return to the Super Bowl.  Right now, they're probably the third-best team in the AFC behind Buffalo and Kansas City.  Tampa Bay, meanwhile, is clinging to the NFC South lead simply because of how horrendous the entire division has been (everybody's over .500 in both the AFC East and NFC East, while the entire NFC South is below .500).  Cincinnati needs the win here to keep pace with Baltimore.  It's sad that Tampa Bay can lose, drop to 6-8, and still hold the division lead with three games left.

Giants (7-5-1) at Commanders (7-5-1): Washington-This is perhaps the biggest game of the weekend.  Because of the tie two weeks ago, this is the tiebreaker, and whoever wins has the inside track at the playoffs.  And I've gotta say, it's advantage Commanders.  The Giants haven't won a division game all season and got their butts kicked by the Eagles last week.  Also, I'm not a fan of the back-to-back games against the same opponent...especially when one of the teams is coming off a bye and the other isn't!  It's a little quirk of the schedule that needs to be addressed moving forward.  Especially since there's absolutely no reason to play the same team in consecutive games anyway!

Rams (4-9) at Packers (5-8): Green Bay-When they made the schedule back in April, this looked like a phenomenal late-season Monday night matchup.  Aaron Rodgers against the defending champs.  Well, this season hasn't gone the way either the Packers or Rams would like, and instead a game that looked great on paper in the preseason turned into a dud.  I'm guessing the weather won't be nice.  And, yes, the Rams did win a playoff game in Green Bay a few years ago, but I don't trust this year's version of the Rams to win anywhere.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-5
Overall: 122-85-2

Are the Megadeals Worth It?

It cost the Yankees $360 million to keep their franchise player in pinstripes.  The Mets will be paying two 40-year-old pitchers a combined $80 million next season.  Carlos Correa just signed a 13-year deal with the Giants that will keep him in San Francisco until he's 41, while Trea Turner will spend the next 12 years in Philadelphia.  And, of course, we aren't too far removed from the Bryce Harper, Manny Machado, Mookie Betts and Mike Trout megadeals.  

That's obviously become the trend.  When superstars hit free agency, they cash in big time.  A lot of money for a lot of years.  And, now that the precedent's been established, those contracts are only gonna keep getting bigger.  It's not crazy to think that we're only a few years away from the first $500 million player.

But are these contracts worth it?  Teams are making quite an investment in a player who they know they'll be paying way above market value for at the end of the deal.  Of course, the whole point is to pay him for the player he is now and hope he can stay productive enough long enough for them to not regret it.  But, as history as shown us, these massive contracts often do not work out.

The most recent example is Albert Pujols and the Angels.  When he left the Cardinals, he was the hottest free agent on the market.  He ended up signing a 10-year deal with the Angels.  No one would consider that a "good" contract.  Injuries and age caught up with Albert and the Angels wanted to work in other players, relegating him first to DH duty, then to a bench player (after they needed the DH spot for Ohtani), then, ultimately, releasing him during the final year of his contract.

Albert, of course, was reborn after signing with the Dodgers and looked like his old self last season, when he ended his career with a farewell tour in St. Louis.  But the point remains, the Angels regretted paying a bench player so much money during the final years of his contract.  Just like how the Yankees regretted paying Alex Rodriguez so much money at the end of his career.

Teams obviously know the risk they're taking.  They're paying these guys through their peak years and into their 30s, when their production will obviously be expected to decline.  There are obvious exceptions (Verlander just won the Cy Young at 39), but that's still an awful lot of money.  And fans, understandably, will expect someone who's making so much money to be worth that salary.  Which is another reason why these contracts don't age well.

I absolutely get why teams do it.  If you've got the money and need and the player has the interest, why not go for him?  And, yes, it's true that only a handful of teams have the money to even offer these types of contracts, which gives them even more incentive to do it.  They (and their fans) expect to reach the World Series and think a player of that caliber is all they need to put them over the top, so the mindset is to go get him, whatever the cost.

Of course, every team going after the same free agent feels the same way, and the "losers" then have to pivot to Plan B.  But that can often turn out to be a blessing in disguise.  Because it lets them take the money they planned on giving to that marquee player and spread it out among others.  That's always a consideration, too.  Especially with the luxury tax.  Which means teams usually end up with a combination of high-priced free agents and low-cost rookies with no in between.

There's obviously plenty of risk for the players too.  Yes, they're cashing in big time, but they're also deciding where they want to spend the next decade playing baseball.  It has to be the right fit, and so much more goes into it than just the amount of money being offered.  That's why Aaron Judge accepted $360 million for nine years from the Yankees instead of $400 million for 10 years from the Padres.  He wanted to be in New York and that was important to him.

At the same time, though, this might be the only time in their careers that these guys will be free agents.  They know this, and they have every right to cash in.  And, if a team is willing to offer them a 12-year contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars, what are they gonna do?  Say no?  Especially if they're a player like Judge or Correa (or the Harper/Machado year) and their value will never be higher.

Still, everyone knows it's the player who'll reap the long-term benefits.  They'll be paid the same as dwindling 40-year-olds as they are now, when they're superstars in their prime.  And they're still getting it whether they remain productive stars for the duration of the contract or not.  Obviously everyone would prefer if they stay as productive as possible as long as possible, but even if they're not, even if age and injuries catch up to them, that salary isn't changing.

So, even though the system benefits the player, it's not changing.  This is the first and possibly only time that the player has all the leverage.  And team owners and GMs know that these superstar players, who don't become available very often, can be the difference maker.  At the very least, they'll create a buzz that leads to increased ticket and merchandise sales.  Which makes it worthwhile for the team, too, at least in the short-term.

An added wrinkle in some of the newer megadeals like Correa's are full no-trade clauses.  Some don't even have opt-outs.  Of course, things can always change by mutual agreement, but full no-trade clauses and no opt-outs bind the player to their new team that much more.  Which is great if everything works out.  But if it doesn't, they're stuck with each other and the team is on the hook.

Although, who knows?  Maybe the long-term contract will work out.  The Phillies sure reaped the benefits of the Harper signing with their World Series run this season.  The team they beat in the NLCS?  Machado's Padres!  But there's also the strong possibility that at least one of these megadeals ends the way Albert Pujols' tenure with the Angels did.  As a huge waste of money.  That's the risk you run, though, if you get the player you wanted that badly.

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 14)

We didn't see anybody clinch a playoff spot last week, but I'm confident we'll get our first one this week.  Maybe more.  We'll even see our first division champion if the Vikings beat the Lions (although, Detroit is a home favorite for the first time in forever).  The Chiefs can also clinch the AFC West, and the Eagles can lock down their playoff spot.  It's plausible that all three could happen, too.

This week also finally marks the end of byes!  I'm sorry, but mid-December bye weeks are ridiculous!  Especially six of them!  Bye should be done the week before Thanksgiving.  Anyway, at least next week we won't have to deal with them anymore.

Thursday Night: Las Vegas (Loss)

Jets (7-5) at Bills (9-3): Buffalo-When the NFL started letting the Giants and Jets play at the same time, they both sucked so it didn't really matter that much to me and I ended up watching Red Zone most of the time anyway.  But now they're both good, and they're both playing important games simultaneously, which is more than a little annoying!  Anyway, the Jets are playing the Bills, who they beat in the first meeting.  The Bills got a gift last week when Kansas City lost and they moved back to the No. 1 seed.  If they don't beat the Jets this time, not only will they lose their grip on No. 1, they might not even win the division and have to go on the road in the playoffs.  Needless to say, they don't want that to happen.

Browns (5-7) at Bengals (8-4): Cincinnati-The Bengals sure have the Chiefs' number, don't they?  I think we can officially call 2022 the "Year of the Tiger."  The more important thing about that win last week, though, is that it keeps Cincinnati's hopes of winning the AFC North very much alive.  They still trail the Ravens on the tiebreaker, but they have the same record, so they're in good shape.  Of course, if they don't start beating the Browns (something they haven't done since 2019), that won't matter.

Texans (1-10-1) at Cowboys (9-3): Dallas-I didn't turn the Cowboys game on until the fourth quarter last week.  That was all I needed to see.  And it was mighty impressive!  It makes you wonder what they'll do against the Texans.  As Tirico said at the end of the Cowboys-Colts game, you want to know why the entire NFC East is at least two games over .500?  It's because of the AFC South!  Chalk up another NFC East win on the tally, as Dallas moves to 10-3.

Vikings (10-2) at Lions (5-7): Minnesota-Even though they're 10-2 and their only losses are to Philadelphia and Dallas (who are a combined 20-4), no one is really giving the Vikings their due.  That might be one reason why the Lions are favored in this one.  Not that they don't deserve it.  Detroit is a very formidable team that won't make things easy for the Vikings.  Still, I see Minnesota wrapping up its NFC North title.

Jaguars (4-8) at Titans (7-5): Tennessee-Jacksonville was one of those teams I was talking about when I said the byes were making the standings annoying.  Well, that and ties.  The Jaguars are a half-game behind the Colts...because Indianapolis has a tie, so the Colts are 4-8-1 and the Jaguars are 4-8.  That's not even a half-game in the standings.  It's like a quarter-game.  Either way, it's not like it matters, since the Titans will all but clinch the division with a win this week.

Eagles (11-1) at Giants (7-4-1): Philadelphia-Next week's Giants-Commanders game is absolutely huge, especially after the tie last week.  Washington has a bye in between the Giants games, while the Giants have to deal with the first-place Eagles.  Which won't be easy.  Philly needs to keep winning in order to hold off Dallas, which I think they will this week, pushing the Giants into a full-blown tie with Washington heading into next week.

Ravens (8-4) at Steelers (5-7): Baltimore-Remember when a Ravens-Steelers game in December used to really get people fired up?  What am I saying?!  Of course you do!  It wasn't that long ago!  This season though?  Not so much!  Baltimore's battling Cincinnati for the division title, while the Steelers are struggling.  You know they'd love to play spoiler and hurt their rivals' playoff chances.  I just don't see it happening, however.

Chiefs (9-3) at Broncos (3-9): Kansas City-Mercifully, this one was flexed out of Sunday night, so we won't have to be subjected to Denver's "offense."  The Broncos are bad.  They've clinched their seventh consecutive losing season, which is exactly the same number of years that have passed since they won the Super Bowl in Peyton Manning's final season.  I don't think that's a coincidence.  As for the Chiefs, they'll be fine after losing to the Bengals.

Buccaneers (6-6) at 49ers (8-4): San Francisco-Will the Bucs finish with a winning record?  Or will Dallas visit an NFC South champion with a losing record in the first round of the playoffs?  Frankly, I can see it going either way.  Especially since their next two games are against San Francisco and Cincinnati.  But they did manage to pull victory from the jaws of defeat last week, so they at least won't go to three games under after they lose to the 49ers.

Panthers (4-8) at Seahawks (7-5): Seattle-Seattle has been, without a doubt, THE most surprising team in the league this season.  And the Seahawks will move into a wild card position if they knock off the Panthers this week.  What's even more unbelievable is the year Geno Smith is having (especially compared to the year Russell Wilson is having in Denver).  It's even conceivable that Seattle could win the NFC West.  But one thing at a time.

Dolphins (8-4) at Chargers (6-6): Chargers-Do the Chargers actually want to make the playoffs?  And why do we always find ourselves asking that same question?  They have the chance to be really good.  They should be really good.  But you never know which team is gonna show up each week!  For some reason, I think we'll get the good Chargers this week.  The Dolphins have been on the West Coast all week and this one got flexed into Sunday night, so they'll be awfully tired when they finally get back to Miami in the wee hours of Monday morning.

Patriots (6-6) at Cardinals (4-8): Arizona-New England was sitting pretty a few weeks ago.  Now, after two straight losses, the Patriots find themselves on the outside looking in with a month left.  And things won't get any easier in their third straight prime time game.  Let's not forget what happened in their only other Monday night appearance this season, either.  Maybe they need to stick to Sunday afternoons.  Because they're staring at 0-4 in prime time and 6-3 in all other games.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-4-1
Overall: 113-81-2

Doha's Olympic Hopes

In news that should shock absolutely no one, a British newspaper is reporting that, based on the success of the World Cup, Qatar is preparing a "serious bid" for the 2036 Olympics.  Qatar has made no secret of the fact that it wants to host major international sporting events, and 2036 wouldn't be their first Olympic bid, either.  In fact, it was only after all of their unsuccessful Olympic bids that they pivoted to hosting the World Cup.

Qatar's argument is based mainly on the idea that they've shown they can not only host a major global sporting event, they can do it at "low cost."  Of course, part of that "low cost" Olympics involves using all of the new stadiums that were built for the World Cup, all of which are within about 10 miles from the Doha city center.  Seeing as I haven't seen what the planned post-World Cup use for those stadiums is, it makes sense that they'd be at the center of a Doha Olympic bid, especially since all but one of them are permanent.

And it really shouldn't be a surprise that this World Cup has gone off without a hitch.  Qatar already has a proven track record of hosting World Championships, etc. in numerous sports, both indoor and outdoor.  This is just the latest example.  So, no one doubts that Doha would be able to pull off an Olympics.  Except the problems that plagued all previous Doha bids will still exist, even after this successful World Cup.

The biggest issue is the most obvious.  We're playing the World Cup right now because of Doha's intense summer heat.  The 2019 Track & Field World Championships in Doha were held in late September for the same reason...with no evening sessions and midnight marathons.  They'll also host the Swimming World Championships in 2024, just six months before the start of the Paris Games!

That's been the main reason all previous Doha Olympic bids haven't gained much traction.  The Summer Olympics are traditionally held sometime in July or August.  The summer heat in the Middle East makes that practically impossible, though.  So, Doha's plan is to hold the Olympics in...November!  Which would not work for a number of reasons.

It's true that there have been Summer Olympics held outside of the July-August window in the past.  The 1956 Melbourne Games ended right around now, and both the 1964 and 1968 Olympics were held entirely within the month of October.  More recently, the 1988 Seoul Games and 2000 Sydney Games were "late," both taking place in September and ending in early October.

But there's a big difference between 1956, 1964, 1968 and 2036.  Television!  Back then, the Olympics were just a sporting event.  Now, they're a multi-billion dollar made-for-TV spectacle.  Global TV rights make up the bulk of the IOC's revenue (and, by extension, the various international federations' revenue).  That's why it was so imperative to still have the COVID-delayed Tokyo Games last year, even if it was without fans in attendance.

Worldwide TV wants the Olympics in July-August.  That's when there's nothing else going on and they can dedicate two weeks' worth of programming to the Olympics.  That's also when people take vacations and are able to travel to the Olympic host city as spectators.  It's not necessarily the ideal time weather-wise for the host cities, but they do it anyway because that's the best time for all of the broadcasters around the world.

November is NOT the ideal time.  Not by a long shot.  Just using the U.S. as an example, the NFL, NBA, NHL, college football and college basketball are all in season, networks are deep into their fall schedules of original programming (I realize this is becoming less and less of an issue and may not be one at all by 2036, but the other issues still apply).  It's also the heart of European soccer season.  So working an Olympics into that schedule is beyond difficult.  (Yes, they do it in February for the Winter Olympics, but the Summer Games are a totally different animal that requires a significantly larger programming commitment.)  And, don't forget, kids are in school and it's harder to take off work in November!

We've already seen the type of problems that can create during the World Cup.  FOX obviously isn't going to preempt its Sunday slate of NFL games for the World Cup, which meant the World Cup got booted to FS1.  That could've proven incredibly problematic had the U.S. won Group B and ended up playing its round of 16 game at 2:00 on Sunday instead of 10:00 on Saturday.  (That really pissed off a British journalist for some reason, even though it made complete sense to Americans!)

There's also something else working against a Doha bid for 2036--the other bidders.  The IOC has changed the bid process, so it's much different than it was in the past.  But there are already plenty of interested cities...for an event 14 years from now!  One of those bidders will almost certainly be from Europe.  By 2036, it'll have been 12 years since an Olympics in Europe, so any European bidder would have to be the favorite.

Let's not forget, too, that when Qatar was controversially awarded the World Cup in 2010, it was not-so-subtly suggested that they "bought" the World Cup.  Sepp Blatter, the former FIFA President, all but confirmed it before the start of the tournament.  With the new Olympic bid process, which is significantly less transparent, I have no doubt that would be an issue again.  Even if Doha was selected legitimately, there would undoubtedly be suggestions of impropriety.  Does the IOC want to take that chance and risk looking as bad for selecting Doha as FIFA?

Lastly, and most importantly, there are the very real human rights concerns.  The IOC received heavy criticism for having this year's Winter Games in China, which has a questionable human rights record of its own, and, even though FOX has shied away from talking about it at all during its coverage, everyone knows about the situation involving the working conditions in the lead-up to the World Cup.  Don't think that's something the IOC isn't aware of or will be able to ignore.

Doha has proven itself as a capable host, and you know the Games would be well-financed.  It also would be a very significant choice, bringing the Olympics to the Middle East for the first time.  There are too many variables working against a 2036 Doha Olympic bid, though.  Which is why I just don't see it happening.  At least not in 2036.

Optimistic for 2026

When the U.S. hosted the World Cup in 1994, there were low expectations.  The hope was that they'd make it out of the group stage, which they did as one of the best third-place teams in the 24-team era.  When the U.S. hosts again, along with Mexico and Canada, in 2026, the expectations will be much higher.  Just making the round of 16 will not be enough.

That tells you just how far U.S. soccer has come in the 32 years between World Cup hosting assignments.  There were low expectations in 1994 because the Americans were, in large part, happy to be there.  That won't be the case in 2026.  Not after the team's performance in Qatar, where they showed they very much belong with the top dogs from Europe and South America.

In the eight halves they played during this year's World Cup, it could reasonably be argued that the U.S. was the better team in six of them.  They didn't play well in the second half against Wales and they looked tired at the end of the round of 16 loss to the Netherlands, but the U.S. was the better team in the first half of both of those games and outplayed England and Iran for the full 90 minutes.  Even in the loss to the Dutch, they had their chances, and that game could've gone very differently had, for example, Pulisic not hit the post in the 3rd minute.

If there was one issue in Qatar, it was the lack of scoring.  They scored only three goals in four games, with Christian Pulisic playing a part in all three of them.  The lack of a world-class striker was very glaring.  But...despite that, the U.S. went unbeaten in group play, largely due to its defense.  In three group games, the only goal surrendered was a penalty kick against Wales.  Zero goals allowed during the run of play.  The only team that can make that claim.

I fully expected Zach Steffen to be the starting goalkeeper at the World Cup, and I'll admit to being shocked when he wasn't even named to the roster.  But Matt Turner more than proved he deserved to be the No. 1.  He was excellent throughout the World Cup.  He kept a clean sheet against England, which scored nine goals in its other two group games and three more in its round of 16 win over Senegal.

The ending was disappointing, but that's actually a good thing.  It shows how far the U.S. has come and how reaching the knockout stage of the World Cup isn't good enough anymore.  Playing England or the Netherlands is no longer an overwhelming experience.  The U.S. went into both of those games expecting to win, and eventually they will.  Those top European and South American teams already know the U.S. can be competitive against them.  Now the rest of the world is on notice, too.

This coming just four years after the lowest of lows, that loss in Trinidad & Tobago on the final day of qualifying that knocked the U.S. out of the 2018 World Cup.  As bad as that day was, though, it might've been a blessing in disguise.  Because it led to an almost complete roster turnover.  The team's veterans were replaced by a generation who'll become the new faces of American soccer.

Throughout the World Cup, FOX's set has been peppered with some of the most famous names in American soccer.  Landon Donovan and Clint Dempsey are legends who were the cornerstones of the U.S. Men's National Team for more than a decade.  It's Christian Pulisic's team now, but he's not the only star.  There's also Weston McKennie, Tyler Adams, Sergino Dest, Tim Weah and so many more.

These guys are young.  The U.S. had the second-youngest roster at the World Cup.  And they're good.  I don't know the exact number, but most of them are playing for some of the top clubs in Europe.  And the level of play in MLS has gotten a lot better, so even those players who are based domestically are more than capable of holding their own against the best players in the world.

A lot was made of the fact that DeAndre Yedlin was the only player on the roster with previous World Cup experience.  Well, that sort of thing happens when your last World Cup was eight years ago!  But I think the young roster was chosen on purpose.  Yes, in Gregg Berhalter's opinion, they were the best 26 to bring to Qatar.  But it wasn't just about Qatar.  It was about being the home team four years from now.

Come 2026, they'll all be veterans of the U.S. Men's National Team...and they'll all either be in or entering their primes!  And the core of the 2026 team will already have a World Cup under their belts.  I say the core because reinforcements are coming.  Ricardo Pepi and Jordan Pefok were among the players who contributed during qualifying, but weren't selected for the final roster, and the under-23 team qualified for the Olympics for the first time since 2008.  Those guys will be fighting for roster spots, too.

So, there's plenty of reason for optimism heading into the 2026 World Cup.  Are there areas for improvement?  Absolutely.  But the performance in Qatar was encouraging to say the least.  The U.S. achieved a lot.  They got out of the hardest group, a group in which all four teams were ranked in the top 20.  They held England scoreless.  In a must-win game against Iran, they won.  And even against the Netherlands, the 3-1 result wasn't indicative of how much the U.S. controlled a good portion of that game.

Ultimately, the U.S. lost to a Dutch team that wasn't necessarily better.  They were just better prepared for the moment.  The knockout round at a major tournament is old hat for them, and once they got the lead, they made sure they held it.  That's where the Americans' inexperience at this level really showed up.  Inexperience that won't be a problem at the next World Cup.

And, frankly, I think losing in the round of 16 may have been a good thing.  It's where they expected to be, but they wanted more.  And it lit a fire under them.  Just as failing to qualify in 2018 served as motivation for this year, the round of 16 loss this year is the perfect motivation for an even deeper run in 2026.

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 13)

We've made it to December, which means we've made it to the stretch run of the NFL season.  Now we're gonna start to see the updated playoff standings at the end of every game.  We can even see our first berths clinched and first division champion crowned this week.

Those current playoff standings, by the way, are crazy!  All four NFC East teams would be in the field if the playoffs started today.  While that likely won't be the case a month from now, it's still remarkable to think that a division most people thought would be one of the worst in the league entering the season is currently the best.  And it still seems like a good bet that there'll be three playoff teams from the NFC East.

Thursday Night: Buffalo (Win)

Steelers (4-7) at Falcons (5-7): Atlanta-Give Atlanta credit.  In a year when they weren't supposed to be competitive at all, they've still got a shot at a division title.  Of course, that speaks more to how bad the NFC South is than anything about the Falcons.  But the point remains, they'll be playing meaningful games in December, which no one expected.  The Steelers, despite looking like the Steelers of old on Monday night, will not be.

Packers (4-8) at Bears (3-9): Green Bay-It hasn't been a good year in Green Bay.  That isn't exactly news.  Just like it's not news that the Chicago Bears have had a quarterback problem for years.  So, the 206th all-time meeting between the NFL's oldest rivals is really nothing more than a run-of-the-mill 1:00 regional game.  You never know what's gonna happen when these two get together, but I feel pretty confident it'll be a Packers win.

Jaguars (4-7) at Lions (4-7): Detroit-Don't look now, but the Detroit Lions are suddenly a very formidable team.  They took a three-game winning streak into their Thanksgiving game, and they looked great against the Bills!  Sure, the winning streak ended, but they gave the Bills all they could handle and then some!  Now they face a Jaguars team that they're better than.  Will this be the start of a new winning streak?

Jets (7-4) at Vikings (9-2): Minnesota-If the Lions lose do lose and the Vikings win, Minnesota will clinch the NFC North and officially become the first team to clinch a playoff berth this season.  The Jets are currently sitting in playoff position, too, so CBS has actually made this their primary early game.  Minnesota clinching the division is inevitable, but you know they want to get it done this week.  Especially since they know they need to keep winning and hope the Eagles lose at least twice for them to get the 1-seed.  So, they can't afford a let up in a game that will likely be tight.

Commanders (7-5) at Giants (7-4): Giants-Washington's upcoming schedule is very weird.  The Commanders have Giants, bye, Giants in the next three weeks.  And it's probably these two games that will determine which one of these teams makes the playoffs (they're both holding wild cards right now).  The Giants need at least a split to have any shot (they've still got both Eagles games and Minnesota).  More importantly, the Giants need a win here just to get back on track and snap their two-game losing streak.

Titans (7-4) at Eagles (10-1): Philadelphia-All of the Eagles' critics like to point out that they haven't played the strongest opponents while building their 10-1 record.  Well, the Titans certainly qualify as a strong opponent.  I'm actually very curious to see how these two stack up against each other.  Ultimately, though, I think the Eagles will do what they've been doing consistently all season.  Find a way to pull it out.

Broncos (3-8) at Ravens (7-4): Baltimore-Denver is not good.  Russell Wilson was supposed to be the missing piece that would put them over the top, but he's a shell of his former self and their offense has been virtually nonexistent all season.  And facing a top-notch defense like Baltimore's isn't exactly a good thing to go against when you have no offense!  So, going with the Ravens is an easy call here.

Browns (4-7) at Texans (1-9-1): Houston-DeShaun Watson will make his season debut for the Browns!  What makes it even more disgusting is that his Browns debut will be against the Texans...in Houston!  I love it that some of the women will be coming to the game, though.  They're the ones who'll deserve the standing ovation in Watson's return.  They also deserve to see him lose to the home team.

Seahawks (6-5) at Rams (3-8): Seattle-As if things couldn't go any worse for the Rams, Matthew Stafford and Cooper Kupp are probably both out for the remainder of this nightmare season.  This certainly isn't how they expected to follow up winning the Super Bowl.  Now, I think they'll just settle for ending their losing streak.  Unfortunately, I don't see that happening this week.

Dolphins (8-3) at 49ers (7-4): San Francisco-San Francisco has moved into first place and looks better every week.  While I still don't think they're in the same class as the Eagles, Cowboys and Vikings, I'm starting to come around on that Super Bowl talk.  This is also a big one for the Dolphins, who'll test their mettle against a legitimate NFC contender.  I don't think they'll win, but they'll make it a close game.

Chiefs (9-2) at Bengals (7-4): Kansas City-A rematch of last season's AFC Championship Game, when the Bengals went into Kansas City and shut down the Chiefs' offense in the second half.  This time they meet in Cincinnati, and the Bengals know they need to win it if they don't want to go into Kansas City again this January.  Except, the Chiefs have been playing like the best team in the AFC for a few weeks now.  And they always seem to rise to the occasion in games like this.

Chargers (6-5) at Raiders (4-7): Chargers-The last time these two met in Las Vegas, was last year's season finale.  We all know what happened.  They were content with the tie and both making the playoffs, until the Raiders kicked that last-second field goal to knock the Chargers out.  This time, it's only the Chargers looking at a possible postseason berth.  And they can't afford a repeat of last year.  Not if they want to actually make the playoffs this season.

Colts (4-7-1) at Cowboys (8-3): Dallas-I know I say this all the time, but I think the Dallas Cowboys might be the most complete team in the NFL.  They sure looked like it against Minnesota, and they sure looked like it again against the Giants.  Both of those teams are better than the Colts, so why would we think the Sunday night game would go any differently?  (This is the first of three straight against the AFC South for Dallas, who still has four out-of-conference games left out of its final six.  Odd scheduling indeed!)

Saints (4-8) at Buccaneers (5-6): Tampa Bay-After last week's overtime loss in Cleveland, Tampa Bay once again dipped under .500 for the season.  But, thanks to the fact they play in the NFC South, the Bucs aren't just in playoff contention, they're in first place!  And, here's the crazy thing...if the Saints win, they're just a half-game out.  Another crazy stat is that Tampa Bay is 0-4 against the AFC, but 5-2 against the NFC.  Seeing as the Saints are in the NFC, that means they win this week.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-4
Overall: 104-76-1

2023's First Hall of Fame Vote

After we got a whopping six! new Hall of Famers from the Early Baseball and Golden Days Era committees, the era committees were restructured once again.  Now it's two years of the Contemporary Baseball Era, with players and managers/executives alternating, then the Classic Baseball Era, which combines everybody from pre-1980 into one ballot.  Up first is the player Contemporary Baseball Era, which has a lot of familiar names on it.

In fact, this ballot looks an awful lot like the ballots we've been seeing in the regular January voting over the past several years.  The names from the Steroid Era, who would otherwise have been sure-fire, first-ballot selections, fell off the BBWAA ballot after 10 years and have moved on to this ballot.  Which means the Bonds/Clemens discussion has been transferred to a different group...and will probably yield the same results.  They need 12 of 16 votes to get in, and it seems likely that at least five members of the committee will have their reservations, resulting in their falling short again.

However, I do think that Bonds and Clemens do have a better chance of getting in now than they did on the regular ballot.  It's a much smaller group of voters, but, more importantly, it's a much smaller group of candidates.  There are only eight men up for election on this ballot, all of whom have a reasonable case.

When I do this for the regular election, I rank my 10 votes in order.  I'm going to do it similarly here, but slightly different.  I'll rank all eight, even though, since the voters are limited to four selections each, only the top four would get my "votes."  And, since I've been pretty consistent throughout their candidacy on the main ballot, I bet you all know who gets positions 1 and 2...

1. Barry Bonds: Aaron Judge's home run chase this season was tremendous to watch, but the people suggesting he was the all-time single-season record-holder are just idiots.  That still belongs to Bonds.  As does the career record.  I won't get into the steroid thing, since you know where I stand on that.  And that's the only reason he didn't give a speech in Cooperstown a decade ago.

2. Roger Clemens: Like Bonds, Clemens was a slam dunk Hall of Famer long before the steroid accusations clouded his candidacy.  Steroids or not, he was one of the greatest right-handed pitchers of his generation.  Clemens was so dominant for so long that the thought of him still waiting this long after retiring was completely unimaginable during his playing days.

3. Fred McGriff: My appreciation for Fred McGriff has grown over time.  He finished just shy of 500 home runs, but likely would've gotten there if not for all the games missed because of the 1994-95 strike.  He also moved around a lot, which I actually think is a good thing, since it shows how much good teams wanted him.  And he produced everywhere he was.  Most importantly, no one questions the legitimacy of anything Fred McGriff did.  There are those who consider him to be a "Hall of Very Good" player.  But so is Harold Baines.  And Fred McGriff was a far better player than Harold Baines.

4. Curt Schilling: I was actually hesitant to put Schilling this high, especially after the way he tried to whine his way off the writers' ballot before his eligibility expired.  He said he only wanted to get in via the Era Committee.  Well, he got his wish.  The writers never put him in, so now the Era Committee is the only way he can.  Until last year, when I was put off by his comments, I always had Schilling near the top of my list.  That's why I couldn't drop him much further than fourth on this list.  His postseason dominance is what puts him over the top for me.

5. Don Mattingly: The Baines election was actually good news for players like McGriff and Mattingly, who'll now get a much closer second look.  The Blue Jays' new hitting coach doesn't have the gaudy numbers of some of the other candidates.  But those numbers would've been much higher had he not been forced to retire due to a back injury.  He was arguably THE best first baseman in the American League throughout the 1980s, when he was the face of the New York Yankees.

6. Dale Murphy: Murphy and Mattingly have very similar candidacies.  Murphy played for bad Braves teams, which somewhat overshadowed how good he was.  I never even really realized it myself.  However, I still think he's a borderline Hall of Famer at best.  If we're using Harold Baines as our baseline, though, he should be in.  Because Murphy was better than Baines.

7. Albert Belle: Remember how good Albert Belle was when he played for Cleveland in the mid-90s?  Therein lies the issue.  He was the best player in baseball for those few years, but that wasn't really long enough.  Belle's career was cut short due to a hip injury, so that's part of the reason.  I can't rank him above the others, though.  Well, all of the others except one.

8. Rafael Palmeiro: Why am I OK with Bonds and Clemens, but not Rafael Palmeiro?  One very simple reason.  Palmeiro failed a test after they started testing.  So, while his 3,000 hits, 500 home runs and 10 seasons with 100 RBIs are otherwise Hall of Fame-worthy, the failed test is the disqualifier for me.  I also never considered Palmeiro to be a "great" player.  Those numbers, I thought, were a mark of longevity more than anything else.

Unfortunately, I don't see the wait ending for Bonds or Clemens.  I'm not sure it ever will.  Of the eight candidates, I think the one with the best chance of actually getting in is McGriff.  Which would be a well-deserved and long overdue prize for someone who was so good, yet still incredibly underrated.

Whether it's just McGriff or somebody else or McGriff and somebody else, I do hope and expect that we'll get at least one new Hall of Famer from the Contemporary Baseball Era ballot.  And, there's a chance that whoever it is might be standing on that stage alone in Cooperstown next summer.  Because I'm not sure we're getting anyone from the writers' ballot.