It's Your Own Fault

When the MLB owners locked out the players nearly three months ago, they argued it was to "kickstart" negotiations and that there was still more than enough time to get a deal done without games being lost.  It's done anything but.  And now, we're looking at that exact possibility everyone feared becoming a reality--the cancellation of regular season games.  Which is just stupid and totally unnecessary.  It's also entirely the owners' fault.

Of course, if you're trying to "kickstart" negotiations, waiting six weeks between the start of the lockout and making an offer to the union isn't exactly the way to do that.  Especially when there's so much animosity between the two sides and they're so far apart on so many core issues.  Frankly, it was only when they put in the arbitrary deadline to preserve the 162-game season that the sides began doing something they should've been doing all along--spending all day at the bargaining table discussing the issues and exchanging proposals.

While they're inching closer to an agreement on some issues, they still haven't touched the big-ticket items!  So, no matter how "productive" the talks are, no real progress is gonna be made until there's movement on those.  And, barring a massive breakthrough, that ain't changing before the deadline.  Which will only add to the list of things the owners and players disagree about.

Frankly, the fact that they're far apart isn't much of a surprise.  Neither side trusts the other.  That was made painfully obvious during the negotiations over the abbreviated 2020 season, when the players essentially gave up and told the Commissioner's Office, "just tell us when the season starts and how long it is."

It's also painfully obvious what each side is trying to get out of the new CBA.  The last two CBAs have been incredibly owner-friendly, and they'd very much like the next one to be just as favorable.  The players, meanwhile, are unhappy with a number of things that they would like addressed, if not changed entirely.  Issues that the owners have entirely no interest in entertaining.

I'm not sure if it was Tom Verducci or Ken Rosenthal who summed up the negotiations in The Athletic, but his take was pretty spot on.  He laid blame completely on the owners (don't forget, a lockout is initiated by management, so the owners can lift it anytime they want) and described their position as offering scraps, then getting angry that the lowly serfs aren't willing to accept those scraps and are looking for more instead.

He's right.  This is entirely the owners' fault.  Not just because they initiated the lockout and arbitrarily imposed a deadline before regular season games are lost.  But because they're crying "poor" while acting like the players and baseball fans are stupid.  They're being greedy.  Plain and simple.  They already get a bigger slice of the pie than the players, and they're trying to make it even bigger while giving the players less.

Every proposal the owners make shows how little they care about the players' economic concerns.  It's true that they raise the amount they're offering the pre-arbitration bonus pool...by $5 million at a time.  Going from $10 million to $15 million when the players are looking for over $100 million isn't exactly moving towards a compromise.  Frankly, it's an insult how they aren't taking that point seriously at all.

The owners are waiting for the players to blink.  They think the threat of missed games and the resulting lost salary will be the thing that drives them to the table and gets them to accept a lesser offer just to get back on the field.  Except that hasn't happened.  It's had the opposite effect actually.  The players get more and more united in their stance against each successive lowball offer the owners make!

And, once regular season games are cancelled, the players gain more and more leverage.  They've already said that if any salary is lost because of cancelled games, they won't agree to expanded playoffs or advertising patches on uniforms, two revenue-generators the owners very much want.  The players also don't even agree with the owners that a 162-game season would be impossible, even if Opening Day is delayed.

Rob Manfred isn't helping matters, either.  The players view him as nothing more than the owners' mouthpiece, and his bragging that "I'm the only Commissioner who's successfully avoided games being lost in a labor dispute" is nothing more than a self-serving pat on the back.  Also, nobody believes him when he tries to say that owning a Major League Baseball team is a money-losing venture, so he really needs to stop pushing that argument!

That's actually what's infuriating the players so much.  They know the money is there.  Major League Baseball is a $2 billion business, yet player salaries have gone down four years in a row even as revenue has gone up.  They just want their fair share of the pie.  They want younger players paid earlier and based on their actual value.  They want a higher minimum salary.  Most significantly, they want owners to actually invest money in their teams.

What the players want isn't unreasonable.  Not even close, actually.  Deep down, I think the owners know that, too.  But...giving the players more money means it's less that goes in the owners' pockets.  So instead, they're willing to cancel games and cost themselves revenue for no other reason than to stick it to the players!

Nobody looks good here.  And the prospect of missing games is only making things worse.  But, should that happen (which seems likely), there's only one side to blame.  The owners.

Time For a Russian Timeout

Russia doesn't understand why the world is reacting this way.  It's like they think invading another country is a bad thing!  But, whatever their political disagreements with the Russian Federation are, they should be kept out of sports.  And, while we're at it, sports should be kept out of politics, too.

Too bad that's impossible.  And Russia knows that.  In so many parts of the world, sports and politics are intertwined.  In was in the USSR, in fact, that sports were used to boost up the propaganda machine.  And it was the USSR that was a central figure in the 1980 and 1984 Olympic boycotts.

There are plenty of other examples that don't involve Russia, too.  Germany wasn't invited to the 1920 Olympics as a punishment for being the aggressor in World War I.  They weren't invited in 1948, either, along with fellow World War II aggressors Japan and Italy.  Likewise, South Africa was blacklisted from international sport for decades because of apartheid.  And Israel, unfortunately, has to deal with it every time an athlete from an Arab nation refuses to compete against an Israeli opponent.

International sporting bodies have long made it a practice to keep countries that are hostile towards each other separated when making groups for continental tournaments.  (That's the primary reason Israel is in the European federation in every sport.)  Likewise, they require national teams to play games at neutral sites or behind closed doors because of political and/or security concerns pretty regularly.

So, no, we can't keep sports and politics separate.  Because they're impossible to separate!  Although, it would be nice if we could.  Because it's the athletes who have to deal with the guilt by association just by wearing the country's name on their jersey.

What then to do about the little problem that Putin has created?  Well, in the four days since Russia launched its attack, the Champions League final has been moved from St. Petersburg to Paris; the only Finnish team in the KHL has withdrawn from the league; Dominik Hasek has called for all Russian players in the NHL to be suspended; Arsenal's Russian owner has handed day-to-day control of the club over to the trustees; and Poland, Sweden and the Czech Republic, who are all in Russia's playoff group for the final round of UEFA World Cup qualifying, have not only refused to play in the country, they've refused to play Russia at all.  Anywhere!

FIFA and UEFA have been backed into a corner here.  They don't want to ban Russia outright and piss off Putin, but they're not being given much of a choice.  Which is a good thing.  Because their "solution," to have Russia compete as the RFU (Russian Football Union) team without their national flag, colors or anthem was as ridiculous as the IOC and WADA's non-"sanctions" against Russia.

Technically, "Russia" isn't even allowed to participate in the 2022 World Cup anyway.  Their "sanctions" don't expire until the end of the year, so Russia would have to compete as OAR or ROC or RFU or whatever other bullshit abbreviation they give them to pretend they aren't "Russia" even though everybody knows they are.  The only reason they were allowed to compete in Euro 2020 and the World Cup qualifiers under their own name is because it doesn't apply to continental tournaments, just global ones.

After yet another doping scandal involving Russia, this time the Kamila Valiyeva situation, Dick Pound, a longtime IOC Vice President and former WADA president, suggested that "maybe it was time for Russia to take a timeout" from international sport because that would be the only way to get the point across.  He was talking about how even though they're technically "suspended," they continue doping anyway and don't care because they know the IOC and WADA will let them get away with it.  But, if you add in the political reasons (and, don't forget, it was a state-sponsored doping program), the argument for giving Russia a "timeout" becomes that much stronger.

When the IOC released its statement regarding the Russia-Ukraine situation, I was confused.  In it, they "encouraged" organizations to pull events out of Russia and stop using the Russian flag and anthem.  But weren't they supposed to be doing that already since it was part of Russia's "ban" that's currently being served?  That "ban" also applied to political leaders appearing at the Olympics.  Why was Putin at the Opening Ceremony in Beijing then?

In a strange way, we probably have Chinese President Xi Jinping to thank for this war not starting sooner.  He didn't want his Olympics upstaged, so he asked Putin to wait.  Which he did.  The Olympics ended on February 20 and Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24.  Wasn't that so considerate of him?

This is actually the third time an Olympics was overshadowed by Putin's active or planned military action.  In 2008 (an Olympics that was also hosted by Beijing), Russia invaded Georgia a week before the start of the Games.  In 2014, Putin was acting like a good host while everyone was IN RUSSIA for the Sochi Games (while the host country was cheating its way to the top of the medals table), but he also wanted to make sure he annexed Crimea before they all left.

The Olympic Truce is a tradition dating back to Ancient Greece that calls for all hostilities to stop so that athletes and spectators can travel to and from the Games safely.  The modern-day Olympic Truce lasts approximately two months, from one week before the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics to one week after the Closing Ceremony of the Paralympics (there's generally a two-week gap between the events).  This is the third time Putin has broken it!  What has the IOC done about it?  Not a damn thing!

Will anything be done here?  Again, probably not.  That's the delicate balance WADA, the IOC and all the international federations have to deal with.  They want to take a stand, but they don't want to negatively impact the athletes.  Or their own bank accounts.  Which losing Russian sponsorship dollars would.  As a result, they issue "sanctions" that aren't really sanctions and looked at as a joke by both sides. 

Is it any wonder then that Russia continues to do whatever it wants?  They know there aren't going to be any actual consequences!  Which is why maybe it's time for there to be some.

Giving Russia an actual temporary ban from international sports would be the nuclear option.  But sometimes the nuclear option is what's required.  And, frankly, this situation is one of them.  Because it's the only thing that might work.  Everything else that's been tried so far has failed.  And Ukraine is currently paying for it.

NFL Broadcast Carousel

Well, I sure didn't see that one coming.  Troy Aikman leaving FOX was a bit of a surprise, but not completely shocking.  Amazon had been openly courting him to do Thursday night games now that they'll be exclusively on Prime Video.  But going to ESPN?  That came out of nowhere!

Of course, ESPN has been looking to upgrade the Monday Night Football booth for years.  Not since Mike Tirico and Jon Gruden have they had anything close to a "good" booth.  In fact, they've typically ranked No. 4 out of the four networks' A broadcast teams.  Too often they made it gimmicky, with experiments that not only didn't work (Jason Witten) but were also stupid (the Booger Mobile).  They struck gold with the Manning Cast alternate broadcast, but that's intended to be exactly what it is.  Which is not a traditional game broadcast.

Their most recent broadcast team of Steve Levy, Louis Riddick and Brian Griese was fine, but unremarkable.  So you knew ESPN was gonna go big now that they'll be getting Super Bowls in the new TV contract (their first is Super Bowl LXI in 2027).  And I'd say getting Aikman, who's been FOX's No. 1 analyst for nearly 20 years, is a big get!

Rumor is they're also trying to get Al Michaels, who's also a free agent and many assume won't be returning to NBC.  There was a lot of speculation that Amazon's Thursday night crew could be Michaels and Aikman.  Now it looks like they might be doing Monday nights instead, which would be an incredible way for Al to cap his career having gone completely full circle.

What intrigues me more, though, is the chain reaction Aikman's move will cause.  Especially since FOX has the Super Bowl next season, and will have a new analyst calling that game.  Which could be either a blessing or a curse, depending on who they get.

There's some speculation that FOX will have an entirely new booth next season, but that seems incredibly unlikely.  Yes, next season is the last year of Joe Buck's contract, but he's also the face of FOX Sports.  He has been ever since FOX Sports launched in the mid-90s.  Plus, he's their baseball guy, so that's (presumably) two different lead play-by-play positions to fill.  Also, I'd assume there's a clause in his contract that gives FOX the right to match any offer he receives from another network.  It would be shocking if that doesn't happen.

So, I'm gonna assume Buck stays, at least through next season.  And the way I see it, there are probably four realistic options to join him in the booth for FOX's No. 1 game, as well as the NFC Championship and the Super Bowl.  All of whom have their pros and cons.

Greg Olsen is probably the most likely in-house candidate.  He got good reviews and FOX loved him on their XFL broadcasts in 2020.  He was so well-regarded, in fact, that Olsen was immediately installed on FOX's No. 2 NFL team last season once he had officially retired.  So, moving him up to the No. 1 team would seem like a natural progression.  But is it too early to do that?  And will he be embraced in the role?

Somebody who likely would be embraced is former Saints coach Sean Payton, who all the networks seem to want in some role.  He's almost certainly gonna end up somewhere, but I think more likely in the studio.  I'm not sure he's done coaching yet, either, so the networks would be weary of putting him on their No. 1 team only to see him bolt for a coaching opportunity.  Might Thursday Night Football be a possibility for him?

Speaking of Bolts, that brings to Philip Rivers.  The networks like bringing in ex-quarterbacks as game analysts.  It makes sense.  Because of the nature of the position, they know the game inside and out, and the successful ones have recognizable names.  Rivers is certainly one of those recognizable names.  But he'd also be a complete novice.  Sure, he could be Tony Romo.  He could also be Jason Witten.  Would FOX really want to take that chance?

You know who my gut tells me it's gonna be, though?  Kurt Warner.  Warner's a Hall of Fame quarterback, obviously, and he's been doing games for NFL Network and on radio for years now.  And he's very good!  Moving to FOX as Aikman's replacement would certainly raise his profile, and FOX would be getting a known commodity who they know can do the job.  Most importantly, he's someone who'd likely work well with Buck, which could be a significant factor in who they end up hiring.

As for Amazon, they won't be getting the Michaels-Aikman booth that they envisioned.  In fact, it's looking more and more likely they won't get either.  (I always thought Al Michales to Amazon was a longshot anyway.  Regardless of the amount of money they offered him, why would the best play-by-play man in football choose to do games that are only available on a streaming platform and also isn't in the Super Bowl rotation?  It just doesn't make sense.)

What they could do, though, is the same thing both FOX and NBC did...have an existing broadcast crew double up that week.  However, unlike the NFL Network games, Amazon's won't be coproduced by one of the broadcast networks, so that may not be an option.  And it's understandable they'd want their own dedicated broadcast crew anyway.  Especially when you consider how much they paid for the Thursday Night Football rights.

My guess is Amazon will hire one of the newer guys as their analyst.  I already said I think it'll be Payton, but it could just as easily be Rivers.  For play-by-play, however, they may end up plucking one of the lesser-known names from CBS or FOX.  Or they could go with Noah Eagle, the son of Ian Eagle, who has drawn positive reviews for his work on the Nickelodeon broadcast of the Wild Card Game the last two years.  (Speaking of that, I could easily see Nate Burleson getting the OK from CBS to do Thursday nights on Amazon and still do The NFL Today on Sunday mornings.)

Aikman, of course, had been doing both Thursday night and Sunday afternoon games on FOX for the past few years.  Moving to Mondays means he obviously won't have to do that anymore.  And ESPN/ABC's getting a Divisional Playoff game as well as joining the Super Bowl rotation starting with the 2023 season, so the one drawback of doing Monday Night Football, no postseason games, is no longer an issue.

Assuming it is a Michaels-Aikman booth, ESPN just went from arguably the worst No. 1 team among the four NFL broadcasters to arguably the best.  FOX's rank will be determined by who they get to replace Aikman, but I just have a feeling it'll be Kurt Warner.  A Buck-Warner booth in 2022, with the former Cardinals quarterback calling his first Super Bowl on TV in his former home stadium.

Best of Beijing (International Edition)

After ranking my Top 10 moments by Team USA in Beijing, my original plan was for today's post to be the Top 10 international moments.  Then I thought, in honor of 2/22/22, I'd have some fun with "Twosday."  But then I realized there wasn't really any way to do that without it turning into a love letter to Derek Jeter, so I pivoted back.

And, I'm talking about the best international moments of Beijing 2.0, so you won't be seeing women's figure skating on this list.  It was, without question, THE dominant story of this Olympics.  The entire thing was just surreal in how it played out.  But there was nothing good about it.  Just the opposite.  Everything about that situation was so wrong in so many ways.

Fortunately, there were plenty of good stories to emerge from Beijing 2.0 too.  There was the amazing Chinese-American freestyle skier (who received so much online hate it was disgusting) and the brilliance of the five-time medalists in biathlon and cross-country skiing.  There was sheer dominance by the Swiss on the alpine slopes and the Germans at the sliding center.  And there were some wonderful, at-long-last golds in team sports that you couldn't help but feel good about.  To name just a few.

10. The Jamaican bobsled team is back: Everyone knows Cool Runnings, the movie about the Jamaican bobsled team's debut at the 1988 Calgary Games.  Their results gradually improved until 1998, which was their last Olympic appearance in the four-man event...until now.  They finished last.  It didn't matter.  It was still great to have them back.

9. From off the team to a back-to-back gold medalist: Switzerland's alpine ski team is so deep that Michelle Gisin wasn't chosen to compete in the women's downhill despite finishing fifth at the 2021 World Championships.  She did compete in the Super G and won bronze.  Then, in the combined, she won her second consecutive gold medal, becoming the first repeat Olympic champion in the event.

8. Dutch treat: The Dutch long track speed skating team has been the best in the world for quite some time, but the short track team is quickly catching up.  And Suzanne Schulting did something in Beijing that had never been done before--win a medal in all four women's events, gold in the 1000 and relay, silver in the 500, bronze in the 1500.

7. Breakthrough for New Zealand: Zoi Sadowski Synnott took gold in the women's slopestyle event in snowboarding, New Zealand's first-ever at the Winter Olympics.  She then added a silver in the big air competition.  Then, at the end of the Games, Nico Porteous, the bronze medalist in 2018, gave New Zealand its second gold in the men's freeski halfpipe.

6. History at the sliding center: Germany completely dominated the three sliding sports, winning nine of the 10 gold medals awarded in luge, skeleton and bobsled, and sweeping the four-man bobsled competition.  Francesco Friedrich and Natalie Geisenberger were a big part of that history.  Friedrich won gold in both two-man and four-man bobsled, becoming the first driver to sweep both events at back-to-back Olympics.  Geisenberger, meanwhile, won her third straight Olympic title in women's luge and, combined with her third straight gold in the team event, is now a six-time Olympic champion.

5. Curling gold for two of the world's best: Sweden's Nicklas Edin and Great Britain's Evie Muirhead are two of the most successful curling skips in history.  All they were missing was Olympic gold.  Not anymore.  Edin, who finished fourth in 2010, third in 2014 and second in 2018, finally won his Olympic title while Muirhead made up for the disappointment of losing the bronze medal game in PyeongChang with an absolutely dominant performance in the gold medal game in Beijing.

4. The five-timers: Three different biathletes won five medals apiece, including two men who swept every gold medal between them.  Norway's Johannes Thingnes Boe won four and a bronze.  France's Quentin Fillon Maillet won two and three silvers.  They both almost won six medals.  Fillon Maillet was fourth in the one event where he didn't medal and Boe was fifth in the one event where he didn't.  On the women's side, meanwhile, Norway's Marte Olsbu Roeiseland did win a medal in all four individual events, as well as a gold in the mixed relay.  And, on the cross-country side of the venue, Aleksander Bolshunov of the ROC captured three gold, a silver and a bronze, giving him an incredible nine Olympic medals in nine career Olympic races.

3. China's figure skating gold: Pairs is usually the first event in Olympic figure skating.  In Beijing they put it last.  Why?  Because China had a chance to win gold.   Sui Wenjing and Han Cong had won silver in PyeongChang, but faced stiff competition from the three pairs representing the ROC (sidebar, we all know they're Russia, this OAR and ROC thing was just stupid!).  The competition was supposed to be close.  And it was.  But, in the end, Sui and Han's brilliant free skate gave China its figure skating gold.

2. Suomi!  Suomi!: Even without the NHL players there, it was a spectacular hockey tournament.  Denmark beat the Czech Republic in its first-ever Olympic game and finished a surprising second in its group.  Slovakia lost its first two games and won the bronze.  Then there was Finland.  Entering these Olympics, the Finns had won six medals all-time--two silver, four bronze.  Never gold.   But they were the best team in Beijing, and they capped their run with a well-deserved gold medal.  Their first. 

1. Eileen Gu simply sensational: San Francisco-born Eileen Gu is a Stanford-bound fashion model who's a dual US and Chinese citizen who just happens to speak fluent Mandarin.  She chose to represent China and figured to be one of the faces of these Games.  And she sure was!  Gold in the Olympic debut of big air freestyle skiing, then silver in slopestyle before capping it off with a second gold in her specialty--the halfpipe.  As she said in her interview with NBC, "Eileen Gu, three-time Olympic medalist.  That's just crazy!"

I'm also gonna give honorable mention to a few athletes: Swedish speed skater Nils Van Der Poel for setting a world record in the 10,000 and an Olympic record in the 5000; Dutch speed skater Irene Schouten sweeping the three women's distance events; Slovenia's Ursa Bogataj for ski jumping gold in the women's individual and mixed team events; and the brilliant French ice dancers Gabby Papadakis & Guillaume Cizeron on getting their first Olympic gold.  Just a few of the many great performances we saw in Beijing.

Best of Beijing (USA Edition)

Beijing 2.0 is history, our second straight Olympics that just felt off.  The COVID restrictions and lack of fans really did have an impact on the atmosphere and the entire experience.  But, once again, they pulled it off, and the athletes delivered with numerous spectacular performances.

As usual, several of those performances were turned in by Team USA.  Americans won eight gold medals, a pretty standard number for the Winter Games, which may end up becoming nine depending on whether the team figure skating are reallocated or not.  Some were expected.  Nathan Chen and Chloe Kim were supposed to dominate and did.  Some weren't.  Mixed team aerials?

And some of the best performances weren't even gold medal winners.  You had Jessie Diggins winning two medals and Elana Meyers Taylor coming out of COVID quarantine to win a silver and a bronze.  They're right up there along with Nathan Chen and Chloe Kim among my Beijing Top 10 for Team USA.  Here they all are.

10. Shaun White says goodbye: In his fifth and final Olympics, Shaun White didn't medal.  It didn't matter.  Because the guys who beat him grew up watching him win gold in Torino.  And Vancouver.  And PyeongChang.  They're his legacy.  He's meant that much to his sport.

9. Ryan Cochran-Siegle's surprise silver: It wasn't the best Olympics for the U.S. alpine ski team.  Mikaela Shiffrin's 0-for-6 was well documented.  There was one exception, though.  Ryan Cochran-Siegle.  He won the only American alpine medal of the Games--a silver in the Super G, the same event in which his mom won Olympic gold 50 years ago.

8. Jessie Diggins makes more history: How did Jessie Diggins follow up a 2018 Games that saw her (along with Kikkan Randall) become the first American to win Olympic gold in cross country skiing?  By becoming the first American cross country skier to win two medals in the same Olympics, just the second and third individual medals for the U.S. in the sport.  What's more impressive, she did it in the longest (silver in the 30 km) AND shortest (silver in the sprint) events on the women's program.

7. Men's hockey's surprise run: When the NHL announced that it wasn't sending its players to Beijing after all, USA Hockey only had about six weeks to put together a men's team.  They turned mainly to the minor league and college ranks, and they ended up with a pretty good squad.  So good, in fact, that they were the only team to go 3-0 in pool play, including a win over Canada.  Sure, it ended with a shootout lose to eventual bronze medalist in Slovakia in the quarterfinals.  But it was quite a ride nonetheless!

6. From "O Canada" to "the Star-Spangled Banner": Bobsledder Kaillie Humphries won three Olympic medals, including two gold, while representing Canada.  She became an American citizen in December.  And in her first Olympics representing the United States, Humphries won a third career Olympic gold, this time in the new monobob event, which aired live immediately after the Super Bowl.  A fitting conclusion to Super Gold Sunday!

5. Chloe Kim repeats: Chloe Kim was just 17 when she won gold in the women's halfpipe in PyeongChang.  What would she do for an encore in Beijing?  How about scoring a 94.0 (out of 100) in her first run of the final and becoming the first woman to repeat as Olympic champion in the event...in dominant fashion?

4. Nathan Chen's brilliance: We knew we were in for something special with Nathan Chen before the Opening Ceremony had even taken place with that spectacular short program in the team event!  He was even more spectacular in the men's event, blazing to a gold medal that he was expected to win and everyone knew was his the second his program ended.  Quite the story of redemption after his disappointing PyeongChang Games.

3. Elana Meyers Taylor's wild two weeks: Elana Meyers Taylor was supposed to carry the American flag in the Opening Ceremony.  She couldn't because she was in quarantine after testing positive for COVID.  She got out of quarantine in time for the monobob competition and won silver.  She then added a bronze in two-woman to become the most decorated Black American Winter Olympian ever.  Then, to top it all off, she got the chance to carry the American flag after all...in the Closing Ceremony.

2. Lindsey Jacobellis' redemption (x2): Back in 2006, Lindsey Jacobellis was on her way to Olympic gold when she attempted a showboating trick on the last jump, fell and finished with silver.  She carried that memory from Torino to Vancouver to Sochi to PyeongChang.  Then in Beijing, at her fifth Olympics, she finally got that Olympic gold 16 years later!  She added another in the new mixed team event, where her partner was 40-year-old Nick Baumgartner, who had a tear-filled interview after he was eliminated in the quarterfinals the men's event, not knowing if it was his last chance at the Olympics.  Turns out, it wasn't.  After the mixed team final, his tears were for a very different reason.

1. Erin Jackson strikes gold: To me, there was no better American story in Beijing than Erin Jackson.  Jackson, the No. 1 ranked skater in the world in the 500 meters, failed to make the team in the event after stumbling at Olympic Trials and finishing third.  However, Brittany Bowe gave up her spot, giving Jackson the chance to compete in Beijing.  She took full advantage of the opportunity, setting an Olympic record and becoming the first American woman to win speed skating gold in 20 years.

There were so many more memorable moments for Team USA at Beijing 2.0, but those are my top 10 favorites.  Coming up tomorrow, the Best of Beijing international edition.  Stay tuned...

Headed Back to Europe (Finally!)

After three straight Olympics in Asia, I'm ready for them to go somewhere else.  I don't think I'm the only one, either.  Those three countries, while they're close to each other, aren't exactly an easy trip for the rest of the world.  Especially for all those officials and media members who went to Tokyo and Beijing basically back-to-back.

Now, don't get me wrong.  There were some benefits to the Olympics being in Asia.  It was cool that the time difference allowed for there to be live action during primetime hours in the U.S. and going all night long, with the last events taking place at wake-up time.  Although, that all-night schedule, as awesome as it was, made for many a night where there wasn't too much sleep to be had!

It was also odd for it to be the middle of the day and have everything be finished.  The U.S. is literally (at least) half a day behind the Far East, which led to the ultra-confusing opening of every primetime show "it's Saturday morning in Beijing, Friday night back home."  The new day was starting while we were stuck in the past.

Another wonderful feature of the Asian Olympics is the quirky scheduling that saw NBC counterprogramming itself during the Opening Ceremony.  They showed the Opening Ceremony live at 6:30 am, then again in primetime...while they had live event coverage on USA!  Then there's the final daytime show on Sunday afternoon...which takes place after the Closing Ceremony will have already happened (which was also the case in PyeongChang and Tokyo).

Of course, NBC's ratings are a frequent target of those who try to use them as some sort of proof that "no one" watches the Olympics anymore.  (These are the same people who say that about all forms of regular TV because "everybody" is streaming now.)  What they fail to mention in those stories, though, is that, even though ratings are down and, yes, disappointing, NBC's Olympic broadcasts were still the most-watched program of the night throughout the Games.

Meanwhile, you also had NBC actively encouraging people to go other places to watch Olympic content if they wanted.  They had live events on three different channels (NBC, USA, CNBC) at the same time, as well as everything streaming on Peacock.  You don't think they were tracking the numbers of how many people were watching there, as well? 

If you combine the viewership of the network, cable and streaming, it's probably about what they were expecting.  In fact, USA has been the most-watched basic cable channel since the start of the Olympics.  Why is that?  Might the 24-hour Olympic coverage have had anything to do with that?  Plus, they don't track overnight viewership numbers, so who's to say how many people were watching USA in the wee hours of the morning so that they could watch an event live?

Besides, Winter Olympic ratings are always lower simply because of when they take place.  They're in the middle of freakin' February, when people are busy with their lives!  Not only that, you've got the college basketball and NBA regular seasons, and the NHL kept going, too.  There was also an important football game that aired on NBC, causing them to adjust their Olympic schedule on the middle Sunday.  The ratings indicate that 70 percent of the country watched one or both events on Super Gold Sunday.

Then you throw in the weird time zone and the fact that the U.S. isn't as successful in the Winter Olympics anyway, and it really shouldn't be a surprise.  And maybe people didn't watch in primetime because they watched live in the morning and didn't need to see it again.  Or they were protesting because the Olympics were in China, so they decided not to watch because of that.

My point is: ratings for everything are down across the board, so the Olympic ratings being lower aren't as much of an indicator of anything as the critics would like them to be.  It's more a sign that people aren't just watching on NBC anymore.  They have numerous viewing options, and they're taking advantage of them.

Those numerous viewing options will be used once again two and a half years from now in Paris, when the Olympics return to Europe for the first time in a decade.  And, I must say, I'm looking forward to a break from the late nights and early mornings that come with an Olympics in Asia.  Instead, we've got the very friendly European time zone, where stuff will still start kinda early (probably 3-4 am Eastern), but, instead of all night, will go all afternoon, ending around 6 or 7 pm.

Live coverage during prime time in the U.S. is, of course, impossible from Europe (that, by the way, is why London will never get a Super Bowl, as much as they might want one).  There will, however, be live coverage in the morning and afternoon throughout the Olympics.  It won't be relegated to the overnight hours only.  Which, frankly, will be a refreshing change.  And that applies to the next two Olympics.  First Paris, then Milan. 

There's something about watching an event from Europe that's just so familiar and comfortable.  Every week people get up on Saturday morning to watch the EPL, and the weeknight Champions League games are at 3:00 in the afternoon here.  Then, of course, there's the French Open, Wimbledon, the British Open, the Tour de France, and any other European-based event Americans watch regularly.

I'm curious to see what type of changes NBC has to make to its broadcasts (the Opening Ceremony will be at 3 pm, not 7 am, and I'm very curious to see how different the "Prime Plus" show will be without any live events to show) for these next two European-based Games.  But, after three straight Olympics in Asia, it'll be a nice change of pace to be in Europe.  For everybody.

Maybe the Coach Is the Problem

Regardless of whether you think she should've been cleared to compete or not, how could you be anything but heartbroken watching Kamila Valiyeva last night?  Here's this 15-year-old girl with the weight of the world on her shoulders, having been fed to the wolves, (predictably) falling apart on the biggest stage.  It all clearly affected her.  And you can tell she was devastated.

So how did her coach react to Valiyeva's performance?  By criticizing her and pointing out everything she did wrong immediately as she stepped off the ice!  As if she didn't know she blew it!  It really was a disturbing scene, and that wasn't even the worst part of it.

It was so bad that IOC President Thomas Bach, in a very uncharacteristic move, was openly critical of the "cold" reception the Russians received.  It really was painful to watch, and it especially wasn't a good look for a sport that has been embroiled in controversy for most of the Olympics.  And to watch this play out with the same cast of characters only made matters worse.

Then you had Anna Shcherbakova, who'd just won an Olympic gold medal, sitting all by herself not sure what to do.  It was the biggest moment of her life and she couldn't even celebrate!  Meanwhile, you had silver medalist Alexandra Trusova breaking down because she definitely had a "second is just the first loser" mindset.  She even said "everybody has one (a gold medal) but me" and said how much she "hates the sport."

All three girls (and I use "girls" here intentionally since they're all teenagers) are coached by the same woman--Eteri Tutberidze.  Tutberidze has earned quite a (deserved) reputation for helping to revolutionize the sport with her stable of skaters who perform quads with ease.  She's made the Russians so dominant that not only is no one else even close, it'll probably take years for anybody to even catch up.

But...because there are so many skaters in that stable, they're easily expendable.  They're like those cars at the dealership that are still perfectly fine, but still marked down to half price because they need to make room for the new model.  Tutberidze, meanwhile, is that person who stands outside the Apple store for hours just to get in line so she can be one of the first to get the new iPhone as soon as it comes out...even though she already has the current model.

Perhaps it's no coincidence, then, that the shelf-life of any Tutberidze skater is one Olympics.  Remember Yuliya Lipnitskaya, the dynamo from the Sochi Games?  She's 23 now.  I think she just filed for the Russian version of social security.  The 2018 gold and silver medalists, Alina Zagitova and Elena Medvedeva are 19 and 22.  I think they both need a walker now.  The Beijing trio will likely join them at the retirement home before the Milan-Cortina Games.  Gotta make room for the new 15-year-olds!

And why are all of her skaters in the 15-17 age range?  Because they're the ones who don't know any better!  They'll put their bodies through the hundreds and hundreds of quad jumps in practice because their bodies can handle it.  Alysa Liu, who won her first U.S. title at 14, has basically said as much.  She basically felt invincible and never thought twice about doing all those jumps.  Until her body couldn't take that pounding anymore.  And she doesn't even do quads!  Let alone multiple quads in the same program!

Is it really a surprise then that when these Russians retire after their one and only Olympics, it's because of a chronic injury?  And to what part of the body?  The back.  Or hip.  Or knee.  Or foot.  Or leg.  Aka, all of the body parts used to do quad jump upon quad jump over and over again.  And for what?  Only one of them will get to be Olympic champion, so is it even worth it?

As a part of their Valiyeva investigation, the IOC and WADA have said that her entourage will be heavily scrutinized.  And it should be.  Because, as everyone in the West who's been relentless this whole time has finally realized, Valiyeva isn't the villain here.  She's a victim.  The adults around her failed her then left her all alone to deal with the fallout.  And when everything collapsed how did they react?  Not with compassion and sympathy but with coldness and criticism.

You can bet that Tutberidze's methods will be one of the many things they look at as part of their investigation.  Because it doesn't seem like her coaching style is healthy.  Especially for 15-17-year-old young women.  It gets results and they've done incredible things that have pushed women's figure skating to new heights.  But at what cost?

A lot of articles about the women's free skate and the aftermath have called it child abuse playing out in real time in front of an international audience.  Tara Lipinski also tried to change her reason for saying why she believed Valiyeva shouldn't have been allowed to skate by questioning what type of an impact what happened would have on her mental health (the hypocrisy of her being a part of the Western media that was relentlessly piling on for a week, which certainly contributed to that, was evidently lost on her).  Frankly, what happened to Valiyeva shouldn't have been a surprise.  It was entirely predictable.

As everyone has finally began to realize, the people around Valiyeva are as responsible for her failed test as she is...if not more so.  There were three drugs in her system, the one that caused the positive result, as well as two that are legal.  What's more likely?  That a 15-year-old devised that little cocktail herself or that someone she trusted gave it to her?  Win at all costs.

That win at all costs mentality in Eteri Tutberidze's camp has produced some incredible results.  But is it good for figure skating and, more importantly, the young women it exploits?  Because it's not just Valiyeva.  She's just the latest example of a skater who's been failed by the people around her.  And, sadly, she probably won't be the last.  Unless something changes.  And that starts by taking a long, hard look at Eteri Tutberidze.

Out of Necessity or the Start of a Trend?

There were probably several reasons for NBC's decision to base all of its Olympic coverage from Connecticut, with the exception of the one on-site interviewer at each venue.  Part of it might've been respecting the U.S. government's diplomatic boycott, but it was probably more about COVID concerns and the required quarantine, as well as the distance to China (for people who just came back from Japan not too long ago).  But I suspect the biggest reason was the Super Bowl falling right smack in the middle of the Olympics.

Even with the Super Bowl in LA, which is a direct flight to and from Beijing (speaking of that, why in God's name did they make Tirico go from Beijing to Connecticut to LA, back to Connecticut?  Was that one-day stopover on the East Coast really necessary, especially when flights from Asia land on the West Coast?), having NBC's Olympic crew going back and forth wouldn't have made much sense.  Especially when so many of their key people were doing double duty.  So, the decision to do everything from Stamford wasn't really a surprise.

It's not like them basing operations from Stamford was a foreign concept, either.  They've been doing that for years at the Summer Olympics, only having on-site commentators for a handful of major sports with everyone else stateside.  The difference here is that virtually nobody is on the ground in the host city.

After two years of pandemic sports, I didn't think they announcers calling the game from a monitor would really make much of a difference.  And, for the most part, it hasn't.  If you didn't know they were in a studio, you wouldn't even be able to tell.  Does the broadcast lose something with them not being able to explain what it's like at the venue or watch practices?  Sure.  But not enough to be significant.

Which got me thinking...is this a one-time thing?  Or will it become a permanent change?  Will all of NBC's Olympic coverage be Stamford-based moving forward or will it be based on the location (they'll obviously be on-site for the LA Games)?

Frankly, I can see the benefits to both.  It's obviously much cheaper to not fly everybody out to the host city.  And the quality of the production hasn't exactly suffered.  However, with the last three Olympics having taken place in Asia, that's a lot of irregular hours for the crew, whereas they'd be on a much more normal schedule if they were in the same time zone.

I also like it that their analysts have a lot more flexibility.  They can go from calling the event to in the studio since it only involves walking a few hundred feet.  For hockey and curling, their game analyst has often been the studio analyst, as well.  However, not having anyone on-site limits the amount of athlete interviews they can do.  They've really only started to do them now...with athletes that have already returned home!

However, there are also none of those cultural pieces about the host city/country.  Those were unlikely to happen at the last two Olympics anyway because of COVID restrictions, but the Olympics are just as much about the host country as they are about the host city.  You need someone on the ground to tape those features, though.

Likewise, there's something missing without the host in the host city.  That's the biggest difference, and it's obviously noticeable.  You don't get the feel of what things are like in the host city during the Games.  They're doing the best they can in Connecticut, but there's only so much you can do when you're trying to describe the atmosphere by watching a picture on a TV monitor.

Of course, COVID is a factor here, as well.  COVID restrictions plus the distance to Tokyo and Beijing certainly impacted the decision-making.  So, you'd have to figure that come Summer 2024, COVID restrictions are no longer a thing that people need to consider (at least, that's what we all hope).  If so, what NBC does for the Paris Games could be a good indication of their plans moving forward.

Now, I fully expect NBC to go back to normal in Paris.  By "normal," I mean their pre-Tokyo strategy where they're primarily based on location with a handful of events being handled in Connecticut.  Announcers especially I'd expect to be there.  And, yes, part of the reason for that is because of how easy it is to go back-and-forth between Paris and the East Coast.

So, really, it's more the Milan-Cortina Games in 2026 where I'm curious about what their strategy will be.  Because, thanks to the NFL's ridiculous 17th game, every Winter Olympics moving forward will have a Super Bowl in the middle of them.  Which means NBC's crew will again have to split duties between the Olympics and the Super Bowl like they did this year. 

And, assuming their rumored succession plan is accurate, Mike Tirico and Kathryn Tappen will both be part of the Sunday Night Football game broadcast starting next season, with Maria Taylor heading up Football Night In America.  Even if it's not next season, it'll certainly happen by 2026, taking three Olympic hosts out of commission.  (There's no way Tirico would try to call the Olympic Opening Ceremony from Milan then do play-by-play of the Super Bowl two days later, right?)

Those 2026 Winter Olympics are in Italy, though, which, like France, is a much easier country to get to than China.  Do they have Lester Holt or Craig Melvin host from Milan for those first few days, then send them over right after the Super Bowl?  Or do they just say "Screw it!" and base everybody in Connecticut again?  And what about the people who won't be doubling up?  Are they based in Italy or Connecticut?  Or a combination?

If I had to guess, I'd say they go back to "normal" and go with the on-site/remote combination.  NBC spends too much money and is too invested to have its entire base of operations located at NBC Sports headquarters rather than in the host city.  But their role as the Super Bowl broadcaster in Winter Olympic years, and the fact that so many of their people work on both the NFL and the Olympics, certainly creates a unique set of problems.

Regardless of what they end up doing, the quality of their broadcast shouldn't suffer too much.  Because, as we've seen, they're able to pull it off just fine remotely.  Is it entirely the same?  No!  But, just like everything else, it has its pros and cons.  Both choices do.  Which is why I'm curious to see what NBC's coverage of the 2024 Paris and 2026 Milan/Cortina Games ends up looking like.

Unpopular Decision Sometimes the Right One

Unpopular opinion No. 1: last night's halftime show wasn't the "greatest ever," as so many on social media were quick to proclaim.  Sorry!  Maybe because it's not my type of music, but I didn't enjoy it at all.  And I'm a child of the 90s, too!

Now it's time for unpopular opinion No. 2: I agree with the CAS's decision to let Kamila Valiyeva skate in the women's event.  I said a few days ago that I think she should be allowed to skate, and I'm glad that she will be.  All signs pointed towards it, too, so I'm not sure why so many people are surprised and/or disappointed about the ruling.  Actually, yes I am.  It's because she's Russian.

This story has dominated the first week of the Olympics, which is as unfair to Valiyeva as it's unfortunate.  Like the Djokovic vaccine thing, it took on a life of its own.  And like the Djokovic vaccine thing, it's not as simple as either side would like it to be.  Of course, the biggest difference is that Djokovic wasn't allowed to compete while Valiyeva is.

In both cases, the timing is the real issue.  The test result in question is from the Russian Championships on Christmas Day.  The samples were sent to a lab in Sweden (because no Russian labs are currently WADA-accredited), which took six weeks! to process the results.  Because of that delay, Valiyeva's provisional suspension wasn't announced until February 7, after she'd already competed in the team event.

Ordinarily, when someone fails a doping test, there's an investigation followed by an appeal before they even announce their findings and any sanctions.  Sometimes the process takes so long that athletes will have already served their suspension before it's even made public!  But, since the Olympics had already started, none of that could be done.  They certainly didn't have time for the standard due process.  Instead, they threw a 15-year-old to the wolves (aka the anti-Russia Western media).

That's an important point worth noting too.  Valiyeva is 15!  She's a minor!  As a minor, she's considered a "protected person" who's treated differently under WADA code.  She'll ultimately be held responsible for whatever went into her body (as she should be), but the penalty will likely be less severe than it would be for an adult.  Her entourage will also be heavily scrutinized.  Because what's more likely?  She decided to take heart medicine on her own or someone she trusted gave it to her?

Western media, predictably, jumped on the fact that she's Russian and used that to create their narrative.  If she was from any other country, Valiyeva would be given the benefit of the doubt.  But since she's Russian, she's automatically guilty.  It's obvious, so there's no need to even investigate!

Russia has obviously had a ton of problems.  That's why they're competing as "ROC" for the second consecutive Olympics right now.  Have they learned their lesson?  Maybe, maybe not.  But situations like this aren't helping matters and they have to know that!

The West, which has been out for blood ever since Sochi, views Valiyeva being allowed to compete as "yet another example" of the powers-that-be "going easy" on Russia.  Except this case might not even be related to the state-wide doping scandal that led to the IOC suspension and "OAR" and "ROC" designations!  We won't know until they complete their due process, which they need time to do!  (Also, how exactly is this "going easy" on Russia?  After they finish their investigation, if sanctions are warranted, they'll issue them.  All they're saying is that this isn't the appropriate time, especially since Valiyeva hasn't even had the chance to mount any sort of defense.)

Perhaps anticipating a ruling against Valiyeva after the investigation is done, the IOC (which advocated for the suspension) has said that there won't be a medals ceremony for the team event in Beijing.  There won't be one for the women's event, either, if she medals (which is likely).  They've also asked the ISU to allow an extra skater to qualify for the free skate in case she's DQed.

One of the reasons given in the CAS decision was that not letting her compete would do "irreparable harm."  Which is 100 percent true.  Say the investigation clears her and her Olympic opportunity had been taken away.  How would that have been fair to her?  Meanwhile, if it's ultimately determined that she shouldn't have been eligible, they can simply remove her from the results and reallocate medals accordingly (which I think is one of the reasons they're not having medals ceremonies for her two events).  That's not ideal.  But it's certainly the better of the two options.

Of course, none of that is good enough for the holier-than-though folks at the USOPC and USADA, who put out their typical sanctimonious statements about how the CAS's ruling is a "slap in the face to clean sport."  Meanwhile, if Valiyeva was American, their reaction would be exactly the opposite!  Remember the outrage about Sha'Carri Richardson's suspension for smoking pot at Olympic Trials last year?!  And don't get me started on Shelby Houlihan!

If the shoe was on the other foot, you can bet the USOPC would be doing everything in their power to make sure she was treated fairly!  As any nation would (and should).  But since big, bad Russia is involved, their athletes shouldn't be afforded that same right to due process?  Again, put the shoe on the other foot.  This is the country whose entire criminal justice system is based on the premise of "innocent until proven guilty."  Which apparently doesn't apply if you're Russian!

Then there's Tara and Johnny.  In the team event, they couldn't stop gushing about Valiyeva and her quads.  They kept calling her the "best ever."  Not even a week later, they're saying how disappointing the ruling was and that the decision to let her skate leaves a "black mark on our sport."  When we don't even have all the facts yet.  Come on!

And who's to say what benefit Valiyeva even got from it?  Is that the reason she was landing all those quads?  How much was even in her system?  Was it a trace amount, barely enough to trigger a positive test?  Also, why did it take the Swedish lab so long to process the results?  Was her B sample also positive?  And how come she's never failed a test before this (that we know of...again, as a minor, her results aren't supposed to even be made public)?

So many questions in this case still need to be answered.  Which is why the decision to let her compete was really the only one that could be made.  There are obviously a lot of people who aren't happy about it, but that was gonna be the case either way.  So, maybe instead of making a 15-year-old the villain, we should sit back and let it all play out first.

Picking Super Bowl LVI

When and how did the Bengals suddenly become America's Team?  Is it because they beat the Chiefs (who are suddenly the most hated team in America, also for reasons I don't quite understand)?  Is it because they're the underdog?  Is it because they used to suck and are now randomly in the Super Bowl?  Is it just because it's somebody new?  Anyway, whatever it is, I don't get it.

I'm not trying to rain on the Bengals' parade here.  I just wonder why the majority of the country isn't just rooting for Cincinnati, but also thinks they'll win...despite the fact that everything points to a Rams victory.  There's a difference between wanting a team to win and actually thinking they will.  Most of America seems to have forgotten that.

Because if America was thinking with their heads instead of their hearts, there's no way anyone would realistically be giving Cincinnati a shot.  Vegas installed the Rams as the favorite for a reason, after all!  Of course, the Bengals beat both of the AFC's top two seeds on the road to get here, so why should a third consecutive playoff road game faze them at all?

However, what the Bengals bandwagon seems to be ignoring is how good the Los Angeles Rams are.  This team had a singular mission this season.  They wanted to hoist the Lombardi Trophy in their new billion-dollar football palace.  It was truly Super Bowl or bust.  That's why they don't have any draft picks.  That's why they went out and got so many veteran stars during the season.  It was for this moment.

The Rams achieving that goal shouldn't really be a surprise, either.  Other than a little blip in the middle of the season, they were consistently among the top teams not just in the NFC, but in the entire NFL all year!  And, let's not forget, all five of their losses this season were against playoff teams, two of whom are division rivals that they beat when they played a third time in the playoffs.

How they won the NFC Championship Game was really encouraging, too.  They were playing the hated 49ers, a team that's been a thorn in their side ever since they moved back to LA.  They were down and the offense had been shut down all game.  Then they scored 13 points in the fourth quarter and sealed the game with an interception to clinch that "trip" to the party they're hosting (even though they're technically the visiting team).  It really was an impressive effort!

Of course, the same thing could be said for what the Bengals did in the second half of the AFC Championship Game.  Say what you want about the Chiefs' decision not to kick the field goal at the end of the first half.  They still led 21-10.  Then the Bengals defense held them to just a field goal the rest of the way and intercepted Mahomes on the first possession of overtime, where their automatic kicker sent them to Hollywood.

And it would be quite the Hollywood ending should they win.  Joe Burrow, of course, has won a lot, including that National Championship at LSU.  That's why the Bengals took him No. 1 overall last year, and you already got the sense the franchise was turning around when he was unfortunately lost for the season.  The fact that they made it here in Year 2, the first where Burrow was completely healthy is further proof that they found their franchise quarterback.

Burrow made it to the Super Bowl faster than any quarterback taken No. 1 overall, and he joins a very short list of QB's to get there in their second season (Dan Marino, Ben Roethlisberger, Joe Burrow...that's the list).  The other QB taken No. 1 overall playing in this game has taken a much longer journey.  Matthew Stafford toiled through years of losing in Detroit before being traded to the Rams in the offseason.  In his first season in LA, he can write a Hollywood ending of his own.

For a Rams team desperate to redeem itself after being embarrassed in the Super Bowl three years ago, Stafford is the biggest difference.  Would they be playing in this game if Jared Goff was still their quarterback?  Perhaps.  But they felt Stafford was an upgrade, and the trade has certainly worked out for them so far.

It's not just Stafford and his favorite target, Offensive Player of the Year Cooper Kupp, though.  It's also that suffocating defense, led by sack master Aaron Donald and cover corner extraordinaire Jalen Ramsey.  And, frankly, that Rams defense is the biggest reason why I think LA wins the game.  I simply don't see the Cincinnati offensive line finding a way to stop both Donald AND Von Miller.  Then, you put Ramsey on Ja'Marr Chase and make somebody else beat you.

Simply put, the Rams are the better team and they're playing at home.  Of course, that was also true about the Titans and Chiefs, and we saw what happened there.  However, Tennessee's weakness was its offense and Kansas City's defense was a problem all year, and Cincinnati was able to exploit both to perfection.  The Rams are good on both sides of the ball, though, so it'll be difficult to completely stop them.

That home game thing can't be discounted, either.  As we saw last year, that's such a huge advantage.  The Rams have hardly gone anywhere in a month.  And they're in their normal routine.  Yes, it's the Super Bowl, but they've been sleeping in their own beds and practicing at their own facility.  Plus, a lot of their players did this three years ago, so they know what to expect.  None of which is true about Cincinnati.  This is all new for the Bengals.

So, there you have it.  America may want the Bengals to win, but that doesn't mean they will.  I think it'll be the Rams.  Cincinnati's day will come, but not yet.  It's the home team that'll get the Hollywood ending.

Who's Headed to Canton?

Now that they're doing it virtually instead of in-person, they actually have the Pro Football Hall of Fame selection meeting weeks in advance and travel all over the country to give the news to the inductees.  No more knocks on the door at the hotel on the day before the Super Bowl.  I wonder if that's going to be a permanent change or if they'll go back to the old way once they can (which is hopefully next year).

Although, whoever's on the committee in 2027 has had their job made both easier and harder with Tom Brady and Ben Roethlisberger both retiring.  And if Aaron Rodgers retires, too, man!  Three first-ballot quarterbacks in the same year!  Good luck to everyone else going after those other two spots!

Last year was like that.  They elected three first-ballot guys (Peyton Manning, Charles Woodson, Calvin Johnson).  All of them were worthy of first-ballot election to be sure, but when you've only got five spots to fill and three are already taken, that sure makes it tough.

This year, there's no such problem.  There are three first-year eligibles among the 15 finalists, but I wouldn't consider any of them a first-ballot lock.  In fact, I think this could be a year where they do a lot of housekeeping and finally put in some guys who've been waiting a long time to be elected.

Tony Boselli, Tackle (1995-2001 Jaguars): Boselli is a finalist for the sixth consecutive year.  He has to finally get in this time, right?  They like their offensive linemen, but only two are finalists this year, and Boselli clearly has a stronger Hall of Fame case than Willie Anderson.  He's just gonna continue taking one of the 15 finalist spots until they finally put him in, which I really hope and think will be this year.  Frankly, it should've happened already.

Richard Seymour, Defensive End/Defensive Tackle (2001-08 Patriots, 2009-12 Raiders): Ditto about Richard Seymour.  It's his fourth straight year as a finalist, so they clearly have a ton of respect for his career.  As they should.  Because the two best defensive players on the Patriots dynasty were Ty Law and Richard Seymour.  Law's already in the Hall of Fame.  Time for Seymour to join him.

Ronde Barber, Cornerback/Safety (1997-2012 Buccaneers): They finally put John Lynch in after making him wait way too long.  Now it's Ronde Barber's turn.  He's the only remaining member of that Bucs defense who doesn't yet have a bust in Canton.  Which, frankly, is ridiculous.  Because Ronde Barber was just as good in his 15th year as he was in his rookie season.  He spent his entire career in Tampa and is the Bucs' all-time leader in so many defensive categories.  And let's not forget his longevity and durability, either.

Reggie Wayne, Wide Receiver (2001-14 Colts): Only one of the three wide receivers will get in.  And that should be Reggie Wayne, who was the best of the three.  No offense to Torry Holt or Andre Johnson, but they're no Reggie Wayne.  Want to know why those Manning Colts teams were so good?  Wayne was their number TWO receiver behind Marvin Harrison for a lot of that time!  Like Barber, Wayne's the only one missing from a group that already has a bunch of Hall of Famers.  In this case, it's Manning, Harrison and Edgerrin James from the early 2000s Colts.

My final selection was a tough one.  I was tempted to go with Devin Hester, who I think has a very realistic chance of becoming the first-ever Hall of Fame kick returner (if not this year than soon).  I also think DeMarcus Ware is worthy of a serious look.  But ultimately, I don't think either first-ballot guy screams out "first-ballot Hall of Famer," which is why I'm not going with either one of them.  Instead, my choice is...

Jared Allen, Defensive End (2004-07 Chiefs, 2008-13 Vikings, 2014-15 Bears, 2015 Panthers): If not for that loaded group of fellow first-ballot candidates last year, it's very possible Jared Allen would've been voted in on the first try.  In the grand scheme of things, though, getting in on the second try isn't too shabby, either.  Allen was just too dominant for too long to overlook.  And, for me, the fact that he was great with the Chiefs, then went to the Vikings and got better only strengthens his case.

So, those are my five Modern Era selections.  The coach, contributor and senior nominees all have to be voted on, as well, but that's more of a formality.  I can't remember the last time any of the non-Modern Era candidates wasn't inducted.  Thus, I'm not even gonna pretend they won't get in.  We'll have a full class of eight that also includes...

Dick Vermeil, Coach (1976-82 Eagles, 1997-99 Rams, 2001-05 Chiefs): It'd be fitting if the Rams win their second Lombardi Trophy in the same weekend the man who led them to their first is elected to the Hall of Fame.  He led the Eagles to a Super Bowl out of nowhere, then won a title with the "Greatest Show On Turf" Rams out of nowhere.  Then he went to Kansas City and won a division title there.  Overall, Vermeil had 120 wins in 15 seasons spread over 30 years!

Cliff Branch, Wide Receiver (1972-86 Raiders): Like some of the players I mentioned among the Modern Era finalists, Cliff Branch was often overlooked on those great Raiders teams of the 70s.  Teams that included five other Hall of Famers on offense alone!  Branch should make it six.  He had "only" 501 catches in 14 years, but football was a different game then.  And he more than made up for it in the playoffs.  He won three rings in Oakland/Los Angeles and caught 73 passes with five touchdowns in 22 career postseason games.

Art McNally, Contributor (Official: 1968-90, 1996-2015): The Pro Football Hall of Fame is the only one of the four that hasn't honored any officials.  That'll change when longtime referee Art McNally becomes the first.  He was one of the contributor candidates for the Centennial Class in 2020, but didn't get in then.  He will this time.  McNally was an on-field official for nine years before becoming the Supervisor of Officials and coming up with a training program still in use today.  He'll be a fitting selection for the first official with a bronze bust.  Hopefully he's not the last, either.

NFL Awards, 2021

I've gotta admit, this Olympic/Super Bowl overlap is really throwing me off!  So is the NFL Honors being moved to Thursday.  I don't know if that's a permanent thing or if it was just because NBC couldn't air it on Saturday, but there is one thing I like about it...it lets me stagger my blog posts!  I don't have to cram the awards, Hall of Fame and Super Bowl pick into the same weekend anymore!  So for that, I thank you NFL.

And, with the Pro Bowl set for Sunday (moving it before the Super Bowl...another one of Roger Baddell's brilliant ideas!), I figured I might as well start with the eight major awards that will be handed out at the NFL Honors.  Although, frankly, there isn't much suspense regarding most of them.  There are four that are so obvious they'll likely be unanimous.

The obvious ones are Defensive Player of the Year, both Rookies of the Year and Comeback Player of the Year.  MVP is a race between two guys, and this will probably be one of those years where the MVP and Offensive Player of the Year are the same person.  So, that really leaves us with just Coach of the Year where there might be any sort of suspense.

While it's possible there could be a surprise among the others, that's doubtful.  Which means the names you'll see below will be somewhat predictable.  So, I probably shouldn't drag it out any longer and get on with it then...

MVP: Aaron Rodgers, Packers-All season long, the debate was Rodgers or Brady.  Frankly, I don't really understand why.  Brady had one of the best years of his career in what turned out to be his final season.  But what Rodgers did was ridiculous!  And the Packers had the best record in the league!  He threw four interceptions all year!  Yes, Rodgers looked like an idiot for his whole "I'm immunized" thing, then having to miss a game because he got COVID, and I'm sure some voters will go with Brady just because of that (that one guy from Chicago already said so).  Being named First Team All-Pro should be our indication that Rodgers won his second straight MVP, though.

Offensive Player of the Year: Aaron Rodgers, Packers-Had he gotten 2,000 yards rushing and/or the Colts made the playoffs, it would've been hard to pick anybody other than Indianapolis running back Jonathan Taylor.  But neither of those things happened.  I was also tempted to go with Cooper Kupp, who nearly had 2,000 yards receiving.  If they don't want to give both to Rodgers, Kupp gets it.  But I think Rodgers likely wins both.

Defensive Player of the Year: T.J. Watt, Steelers-When you tie Michael Strahan's single-season sack record, there's a pretty good chance you're gonna be named Defensive Player of the Year.  Yes, there was an extra game.  Records are gonna fall with the extra game.  And he only played in 15 of them, which means he had 1.5 sacks per game, including four in that Monday night win over the Browns that kept Pittsburgh's playoff hopes alive.  He becomes the second Defensive Player of the Year in the family. 

Offensive Rookie of the Year: Ja'Marr Chase, Bengals-Joe Burrow received a lot of the credit for the Bengals' success this season, but he needed somebody to throw to!  And Chase was simply spectacular at R1, setting NFL rookie single-season and single-game records for receiving yards.  His 266-yard game against the Chiefs in the regular season is a big reason why Cincinnati won that game!  The Benglas don't win the AFC North (or get to the Super Bowl) without their outstanding rookie receiver.

Defensive Rookie of the Year: Micah Parsons, Cowboys-Parsons essentially had this award wrapped up at midseason, and rightfully so!  He had one of the best rookie seasons by a defensive player in recent memory.  In fact, he was a Defensive Player of the Year candidate for a good portion of the season.  If it wasn't locked up already, the fact that the same voters made him the only rookie named First Team All-Pro confirmed it.

Comeback Player of the Year: Joe Burrow, Bengals-Everyone pretty much assumed Dak Prescott was a shoo-in for Comeback Player of the Year.  And for a good portion of the season he was!  Then Joe Burrow blew past him.  Voting was done after the regular season, so Cincinnati's Super Bowl run doesn't count, but he sure deserves credit for leading the Bengals to the division title.  It makes you wonder how last season might've gone if he hadn't gotten hurt (but then they don't get Ja'Marr Chase, so I guess it all worked out).

Coach of the Year: Mike Vrabel, Titans-There's a lot of support for Zac Taylor, which makes sense after the season the Bengals had.  There's even some support for Belichick after the Patriots got back to the playoffs.  I'm going with Mike Vrabel, though.  The Titans didn't just earn the No. 1 seed in the AFC.  They had a five-game winning streak that included victories over Buffalo, Kansas City and the Rams, and their record against playoff teams was spectacular!  (Yet, they also somehow lost to the Jets and Texans.)  Then they won three straight to end the season and snag the 1-seed.

Walter Payton Man of the Year: Cameron Jordan, Saints-This is always a tough one.  It's the NFL's most prestigious award, but it's not like the other seven where it's determined by performance on the field.  Each team nominates somebody and, while there are some familiar names among the 32 finalists, it's based on what a player does off the field as much as he does on it.  And, as usual, if you read all 32 profiles, you'll think they all deserve to win.

Sometimes there's a clear choice.  That's what we had last year with Russell Wilson.  This year?  Not so much!  Although I'd love to see it go to Andrew Whitworth just because his two teams are meeting in the Super Bowl, it probably won't be him.  But then again, maybe it will be.

My choice, however, is veteran Saints defensive end Cameron Jordan.  His on-field exploits are obvious.  What he did for New Orleans residents in the wake of Hurricane Ida is the thing that puts him over the top for me, though.  It was so long ago that it doesn't even seem like this season, but the Saints were displaced when the hurricane ripped through New Orleans in September.  Afterwards, he immediately teamed up with the United Way to provide meals for people who became homeless or food insecure.  He's also set a program where New Orleans police work with the local community and volunteers at elementary schools every week.  All 32 candidates are worthy, but Cameron Jordan stands out the most.

Beijing 2.0 Is Here

The Tokyo Olympics ended just six months ago.  Yet here we are again, with another Olympic Games set to begin.  Each Olympics is unique in its own way, but these Games will have a special distinction.  Beijing hosted the Summer of Phelps & Bolt 14 years ago and now becomes the first city to serve as the official host of both a Summer and Winter Games.

What's cool is that they're reusing some of the venues from 2008.  The Water Cube, the site of Mr. Phelps' triumphs, is now the "Ice Cube," where the curling competition is taking place.  Hockey and figure skating are being held in the arenas that were used for gymnastics, basketball and volleyball.  And, of course, the magnificent Bird's Nest Stadium will hold its second Opening Ceremony.

Beijing is only hosting the ice events and big air snowboarding/skiing (on a really cool-looking jump that looks like a dragon), though.  Everything else is in the mountains outside of the city, some of which are more than 100 miles away.  As a result, there are three separate Olympic Villages, one for each venue cluster.

It's also the first time that the Winter Olympics and Super Bowl overlap, which is something the NFL has made sure will be a regular occurrence every fourth year moving forward (have I mentioned how much I hate that stupid 17th game?!).  NBC was wise to make sure they had the Super Bowl this year, making for an incredible Super Bowl Sunday.  I'm curious to see if the Olympics are overshadowed at all, though.  I'm sure they will be.  It's really more a question of how much and for how long?

There are things about this Olympics that can't be avoided, either.  They're controversially taking place in China, which led the U.S. and several other Western nations to stage a "diplomatic boycott" over China's human rights record.  China's also the country where the COVID-19 pandemic started, and the world is still in the midst of it as we enter the second COVID Olympics.

Just like in Tokyo, there will be restrictions.  The athletes are once again living and competing in a bubble environment.  Foreign spectators are once again prohibited, and no tickets were sold.  Although, unlike last year, there will be fans in the stands, as Olympic organizers will invite "select groups" to attend each event.

Also unlike last year, these Olympians weren't left hanging wondering whether the Games would be postponed or not.  There was so much uncertainty for the world's summer athletes leading up to Tokyo.  That's not the case this time.  After those Games were able be put on successfully, it was pretty clear that there would be no delay for Beijing 2.0.  Even with the omicron variant, postponement simply wasn't going to happen.

And, I don't know about you, but I could use a second helping of Olympics in six months (even if I haven't finished clearing the Tokyo Games off my DVR yet).  I'm not old enough to remember that time, but it's a throwback to when the Summer and Winter Olympics were held in the same year, which last happened 30 years ago in Albertville and Barcelona.

So what should we look out for at Beijing 2.0?  Well, I'm looking forward to the debut of women's monobob, which is exactly what it sounds like.  One-person bobsled.  There's already two-man and four-man bobsled.  Now monobob joins the ranks, giving the women a second event.  They've also added more events in snowboarding and freestyle skiing, as well as a mixed team relay in short track (which sounds really fun!).

We were also supposed to see the NHL's return to the Olympics after an eight-year absence.  That, of course, was made impossible by the number of games that the league had to postpone because of COVID.  As a result, we'll have to wait until 2026 for that, and the ROC (with its team full of KHL players) will be the overwhelming favorites to win a second straight gold medal.

They keep adding more and more events to the Winter Olympics, so the all-time record for most medals at a single Games keeps getting easier to achieve.  The current record is Norway's 39 in PyeongChang.  I think they beat that this time, becoming the first nation ever to win 40 medals at a Winter Olympics.  They may set a record for gold medals, too.

As for the United States, "consistent" is the first word that comes to mind.  After winning 10 gold medals in Salt Lake City, that number has been exactly nine at each of the last four Winter Olympics.  I see the Americans being right in that range once again while fighting Germany, Canada and the ROC for second place in the medal standings behind Norway.

American medal chances are in all of the standard sports you'd think of, too.  There should be plenty in snowboarding and freestyle skiing, while women's hockey and Nathan Chen in figure skating are also safe bets.  You can probably count on at least one medal from Mikaela Shiffrin, too, and maybe Jessie Diggins can grab an individual gold after her history-making win in PyeongChang.  I also like the chances to medal in women's speed skating for the first time in 20 years.

Overall, I've got 29 countries winning medals in Beijing, including 19 taking at least one gold.  Here's my top 10:

1. Norway 41 (16-14-11)
2. Germany 28 (12-6-10)
3. ROC 27 (9-7-11)
4. United States 26 (10-9-7)
5. Canada 25 (8-11-6)
6. Austria 21 (6-8-7)
7. France 20 (8-3-9)
8. Japan 20 (3-10-7)
   
9. China 17 (7-6-4)
10. Sweden 16 (7-6-3)