The Only Team In Town

Here in New York, we have nine teams in the four major sports counting the Devils.  So, there's always multiple teams in season at all times.  Which makes it really hard to fathom a team having a city entirely to themselves!  Yet there's at least one in each of the four major sports. as well as few in MLS (Austin FC) and the WNBA (Connecticut Sun).

Not including MLS, there are 13 major league franchises that are the only team in town.  If you include MLS, that number drops to seven.  Also, all seven NHL teams based in Canada play in the same city as a CFL franchise, so they're not included.  In fact, the CFL's Saskatchewan Roughriders are the only Canadian-based franchise that can make that claim.

Incredibly, more than half of the one-team cities are in the NBA (although, three of those seven have an MLS franchise, as well).  Three are in the NHL (two of which have an MLS team), and the Jacksonville Jaguars are the only one in the NFL.  Thanks to the Chargers and Raiders, as well as the Warriors, Baseball has gone from zero to two in recent years, as San Diego and Oakland are now one-team major-league cities.

It's also worth noting here that Oakland and San Jose are both part of the San Francisco media market, so the A's and Sharks can technically be considered "San Francisco" teams.  And, since I'm counting the Devils as "New York," I guess I should probably include them as "San Francisco," too.  Which drops us to these 11 franchises:

Carolina Hurricanes: The Panthers and Hornets both play in Charlotte, while the Hurricanes play in Raleigh.  What's interesting about that is they moved from Hartford, where they were also the only major league show in town.  Although, they share Raleigh with NC State, Duke and North Carolina, so they're far from the ONLY show.

Columbus Blue Jackets: When the NHL gave Ohio an expansion team, they picked Columbus on purpose.  They picked it BECAUSE it didn't have a major league team.  Just the Buckeyes.  And the Crew, a charter member of MLS.  They also strategically set it up so that Columbus would have the NHL and AAA baseball teams (the Clippers), while Cleveland had the MLB and AAA hockey teams (the Monsters), with each serving as the Minor League affiliate of the other.

Jacksonville Jaguars: I still have absolutely no idea why there's an NFL team in Jacksonville!  Does Florida really need three teams?  Anyway, the Jaguars exist and, as such, they're the only NFL team that doesn't share its home market with anybody else.  The Marlins' AAA team just moved to Jacksonville, so at least they've got that over the summer.

Memphis Grizzlies: They had options when they left Vancouver.  It originally looked like St. Louis would be the destination, but it eventually came down to Memphis and Louisville, neither of which had a professional team at the time.  They picked Memphis.

Oklahoma City Thunder: We all know how things in Oklahoma City went down.  The Hornets needed somewhere to play after Hurricane Katrina, and Oklahoma City was both close enough to New Orleans and available.  After the Hornets moved back to New Orleans full-time, Oklahoma City still wanted a team, so they poached the Sonics from Seattle.  Fortunately, it looks like that situation will be rectified relatively soon.

Orlando Magic: Unlike the Jaguars' existence, I completely get the Orlando Magic.  I also think it was a clever (and brilliant) move by the NBA to put their second Florida-based franchise in Orlando rather than Tampa, which already had the Bucs and Lightning when the Magic were born and would eventually get the Rays, too.  The Magic, instead, are the only pro team in central Florida rather than one of four in the saturated Tampa Bay area.

Portland Trail Blazers: There was an interesting article about the Blazers about a week ago.  It said how, among NBA teams, they're incredibly isolated since they aren't just the only pro team in Oregon, they're the only NBA team in the Pacific Northwest.  That'll obviously change when and if Seattle rejoins the NBA, but it was an interesting (and correct) take.

Sacramento Kings: Sacramento is the capital of California, but also nowhere near its largest city, which partially explains why the Kings are the only pro team in the city.  They were supposed to get an MLS expansion team, too, but that doesn't look like it's happening anymore.  Like a number of the other NBA relocations, the Kings chose Sacramento when they left Kansas City BECAUSE it didn't have any pro teams.

San Antonio Spurs: Of all the single-team cities, San Antonio is probably the one that's enjoyed the most success.  The Spurs have had a great run under Gregg Popovich and have such an incredible following.  In fact, they're the model NBA franchise.  And, outside of when the Saints had to temporarily join them after Katrina, they've got San Antonio all to themselves!

San Diego Padres: After the Chargers moved north to LA, the Padres became unique among MLB teams in that San Diego is now the only city that has an MLB team and nobody else.  Of course, there's also Oakland, which I mentioned earlier, but there's also a very good chance the A's could end up moving to Las Vegas.  The Padres, however, aren't going anywhere.  (And the fact that the Padres got a new stadium but the city wouldn't give them one is a big reason why the Chargers left.)

Utah Jazz: Finally, we've got the Utah Jazz.  Yet another NBA franchise that relocated to a city that didn't have another major league team specifically for that reason.  And Salt Lake City has certainly worked out much better for them than New Orleans.  They aren't isolated like the Blazers, either.

As I look at this list of teams, it makes me wonder what that must be like.  Because some of them aren't just the only pro team in their town.  The Jazz, Blazers and Thunder are the only pro team in their entire state!  No split fandom there.  No local rival.  Just you and your fans.  It must be nice!

Baseball's Unbreakable Records

They say records are made to be broken.  Sometimes it just takes 61 years!  Sometimes it takes longer.  But there are also some records where that saying doesn't apply.  Especially in baseball.  Some of baseball's most hallowed records are so hallowed mainly because they'll never be broken.  Although, I probably shouldn't say "never."  Because, as highly unlikely as it might be, it's still theoretically possible that these records could fall one day.

Baseball, in fact, has a lot of "unbreakable" records simply because of how much the game has changed over time.  There are also some records that are impossible to break.  Barring another rules change, every pitcher hitting record is safe (Ohtani doesn't count).  So are most of the records set during the Dead Ball Era, when the style of play was completely different.

Some of those records are so obvious they aren't even worth mentioning.  Anything set in the 1800s, for example.  But there are others that, even though they're "unbreakable," they're among the most hallowed in the sport.  Records such as...

Cy Young's 511 wins & 749 complete games: The pitching award is named after him for a reason!  The benchmark for pitching excellence is 300 wins, and some people even think that number's becoming unreachable.  Cy Young won 211 games more than that!  And the 749 career complete games is about 15 years' worth of complete games for the entire Major Leagues in the modern game.

Walter Johnson's 110 shutouts: With the death of the complete game has also come the death of the shutout.  Thus, Walter Johnson's record is safe.  Among active players, Clayton Kershaw is the career leader with 15 shutouts...in 15 years!

Christy Mathewson's 3 World Series shutouts: This record, frankly, is mind-boggling!  And it's completely unfathomable today!  Not only did Mathewson throw three shutouts in a single World Series, he did it within the span of a week!  Nearly 120 years later, it remains one of the most amazing feats in baseball history.

Nolan Ryan's 5,714 strikeouts & 7 no-hitters: Consider all the great pitchers who've never thrown a no-hitter.  Then think about the fact that Nolan Ryan threw seven!  His career spanned 27 years, so that longevity certainly played into it, but, still, no one's getting anywhere near seven no-hitters.  Nor is anyone getting anywhere near 5,714 strikeouts.  Another number that is simply mind-boggling!

Connie Mack's 3,731 managerial wins & 50 years managing: Speaking of longevity, Connie Mack managed the Philadelphia A's from 1901-50!  We'll never see someone manage 50 years again, let alone 50 years with the same team!  That, of course, is a big reason why Mack, much like Cy Young, holds the all-time records for games managed, wins AND losses.

Cal Ripken's 2,632 consecutive games: Here's a great example of an "unbreakable" record being broken.  Lou Gehrig's 2,130 consecutive games.  And Cal Ripken's pursuit of the streak was rightly celebrated as it was happening.  Cal's streak ended very differently...when he voluntarily sat down.  But, when you consider the fact that teams build in off days for their stars and no one's even allowed to play 162 games in a season anymore, playing every game for 15-plus years doesn't look like it's happening.

Pete Rose's 4,256 hits: Miguel Cabrera got his 3,000th hit this season, making him just the 33rd player in history to reach that mark.  Derek Jeter retired in 2014 in sixth place on the all-time list...with 3,465 hits.  Two players have 4,000.  Pete Rose and Ty Cobb.  When you consider Jeter, a Hall of Famer who played at an elite level for 20 years, finished his career nearly 800 behind Rose, the thought of anybody catching him borders on impossible.

Joe DiMaggio's 56-game hitting streak: Of all the hallowed baseball records, this is perhaps the most well-known.  The closest anyone has come to DiMaggio since 1941?  Pete Rose with 44 in 1978.  Jimmy Rollins is the most recent player to have one that was reasonably long.  His streak ended at 38!  Even thinking about a modern-day player getting a hit every day for two months while facing three or four different pitchers a game and having the pressure mount every at-bat the longer the streak continues makes you appreciate what DiMaggio did so much more.

Rickey Henderson's 1,406 stolen bases: Rickey Henderson has a lot of records that are pretty close to untouchable.  The stolen base is simply not a part of today's game.  That might change with the rule changes next season, but 1,400 career steals is pretty far out of reach regardless.  So is his 130 steals in 1982.  This season's MLB team leader is the Texas Rangers with 125.  As a team!  He had 130 by himself!

Hank Aaron's 25 All*Star Games: In fairness, there were two All*Star Games for four seasons from 1959-62 and playing in both of those games counts as two separate All*Star appearances.  But, still, even if you combine them in those years, Aaron was still an All*Star 21 times!  In order to match that, someone would need to play 21 years and be named an All*Star every season, including their rookie year and final season.  Not impossible, but the likelihood of a 21-year career is incredibly slim.  And if they don't do the first part, they can't do the second.

That's actually what makes things like Judge's pursuit of Maris so great.  Baseball's been around for so long and has so many records, some of which are completely untouchable.  So, when somebody gets close to one, it's exciting.  And when they tie and/or break it, it's something we know we might not ever see again.  Which is why we appreciate it so much!

The Pro Bowl Games

The NFL finally decided what they're going to do about the Pro Bowl.  Not have it.  It was a decision that was a long time coming and seemed inevitable.  Simply put, no matter how hard they tried, there was no way to improve the Pro Bowl.  So doing away with the "game" element really was the best solution.

It wasn't always like this.  The Pro Bowl has always been the most unique of the four All*Star games because of when it's held.  The others are all in the middle of the season, but you can't really do that with the Pro Bowl, so it had to be after the season.  (Although, it would've been interesting if instead of two random teams playing in the Hall of Fame game, they combined it with the Pro Bowl and had the Pro Bowl in Canton as the opening game of the preseason.)

Still, for a while they were still able to make the Pro Bowl a worthwhile event.  They played it in Hawaii for 30 years!  So, even if guys didn't necessarily want to play in the game, they still got a week-long Hawaiian vacation out of it!  Then Roger Baddell had to get involved and kill the Pro Bowl once and for all.

Almost as soon as he became commissioner, Baddell set out to "improve" the Pro Bowl by moving it from the weekend after the Super Bowl to the weekend between the conference championship games and Super Bowl, thus ensuring that all players from the two best teams in the league would be unavailable!  He also made the brilliant decision to move the game out of Hawaii, first moving it to the site of the Super Bowl before it settled in Orlando for a little while.  Where would you rather spend a week?  Hawaii or Disneyworld?  

Last year it was in Las Vegas, which actually seemed like a smart long-term solution.  (Again, where would you rather go?  Vegas or Disney?)  It was the same weekend as the NHL All*Star Game, which was also in Las Vegas, which made for a pretty cool doubleheader.  That, of course, would prove to be the last Pro Bowl as we knew it.

Speaking of the NHL, they gave us that ridiculous "choose your own teams" All-Star format that for some reason every league except Baseball (which has always had the best All*Star Game...and always will) decided to adopt.  The "pick your own team" thing was just as dumb as it sounds and was coupled with just as terrible florescent green and florescent orange uniforms.  Fortunately, that format only lasted a few years before they reverted back to the traditional AFC vs. NFC.

Personally, I think the Pro Bowl was doomed as soon as it left Hawaii.  Aloha Stadium, where they played the game, has since been condemned, and it was never an NFL-quality venue, but it didn't need to be.  The game itself was secondary.  It was more of an experience.  And people still watched it.

That, to me, is the biggest takeaway from all of this.  Yes, the Pro Bowl most years was little more than a pillow fight where tackling was optional.  But defense is optional in the NBA and NHL All*Star Games, so I don't really see the difference.  And, even preseason-quality, non-competitive NFL is still better than the spring football that the AAF, USFL and XFL keep trying to force on people.

And, again, for all the complaining people did about the Pro Bowl, people still watched it.  So clearly the low-quality, not-as-competitive-as-people-would-like-it-to-be game still drew viewers.  Was it because it was still "football" and the only thing on?  Perhaps.  It wasn't typical NFL-like numbers, but you still had enough people watching the Pro Bowl to justify its existence, no matter how poor the football.

Although, we probably shouldn't be surprised that the NFL ultimately decided to kill the Pro Bowl.  Frankly, that seems to have been Baddell's mission with all of his changes.  Because they did nothing to improve it.  All they did was turn it into more of a joke and make it something people can live without.

But they still want to recognize the 88 Pro Bowlers (that's another issue I've always had with the Pro Bowl...teams have 53-man rosters, so why are there only 44 players per team in the Pro Bowl?), so they'll instead have the "Pro Bowl Games," with a flag football game as the main event.  Sorry, but that's dumber than what they did for the 2020 Pro Bowl, which was played over Madden because of the pandemic.

I'm sure part of the idea for the "Pro Bowl Games" came from the Skills Competition that they've had at the Pro Bowl in recent years (another brilliant Baddell idea!).  Have you ever seen that Skills Competition?  It's practically unwatchable!  And the dodgeball game, which seemed like a cool idea on the surface, turned out to be just as bad as the rest of it.  Which further turned the Pro Bowl into nothing more than a joke.

So, it's been clear for a few years that the NFL was trying to move away from a traditional game for the Pro Bowl.  I'm actually somewhat surprised they had an actual game last season after the 2020 cancellation, which would've given them the perfect excuse to not bring it back.  Instead, we'll get a flag football game, which is essentially what the Pro Bowl had become anyway.  Is that better?  Who's to say?  But my inclination is that it's not.

Whether this is a one-year experiment remains to be seen, but I doubt it.  The NFL has been letting the Pro Bowl die a slow death for a while now.  The decision to replace it with the "Pro Bowl Games" is nothing more than digging a six-foot-deep hole, pushing the Pro Bowl into it and covering it with dirt.  All that's missing is the headstone.

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 3)

It's only Week 3, and the standings already funky!  The AFC South has a combined total of one win (despite the fact that there have been two AFC South vs. AFC South games!).  Meanwhile, everybody in the NFC North and NFC West is 1-1, and the only divisions with two 2-0 teams are the NFC East and AFC East.  And the AFC East definitely won't have two 3-0 teams.

Thursday Night: Pittsburgh (Loss)

Texans (0-1-1) at Bears (1-1): Chicago-Is anyone surprised Sunday Night Football didn't go well for the Bears last week?  Fortunately, the Texans aren't anywhere near as good as the Packers.  Houston, in fact, is one of the worst teams in the league.  Thus, as bad as last week was, Chicago is still looking good to improve to 2-1.

Raiders (0-2) at Titans (0-2): Tennessee-Two playoff teams from last season who are, perhaps unexpectedly, both 0-2.  An 0-3 start would be much worse for the Raiders than it would be for the Titans.  Unfortunately, that's the result that seems more likely.  Yes, the Titans got their butts kicked by the Bills last week.  I'm still somewhat more encouraged by them than the Raiders blowing their game against the Cardinals, though.

Chiefs (2-0) at Colts (0-1-1): Kansas City-When the Colts saw their 2022 schedule, they probably figured they'd start 2-0.  Instead, they're winless with 20 total points scored after an embarrassing shutout loss in Jacksonville.  The good thing, I guess, is that they're only a half-game back in that horrible division!  But playing the Chiefs won't make them feel any better about themselves.

Bills (2-0) at Dolphins (2-0): Buffalo-An early big game in the AFC East.  The Bills being 2-0 isn't a surprise.  The Dolphins being 2-0 certainly is, although maybe it shouldn't be since we saw some signs at the end of last season.  Buffalo's defense will obviously be impacted by all of the injuries, but I think they're a good enough team to overcome them.  And, if this game turns into a scoring fest, their offense is more than capable of handling that, too.

Lions (1-1) at Vikings (1-1): Minnesota-Both of these teams have lost to the Eagles, who many think are one of the elite teams in the league.  So they probably both have reason to feel good about themselves, despite the fact that they're 1-1.  The Lions actually gave Philly a better game than Minnesota did, but the Vikings looked awfully impressive against the Packers!  That game was in Minnesota, too, as is this one.  Thus, the Vikings are the pick.

Ravens (1-1) at Patriots (1-1): Baltimore-Are the Ravens good or not?  I'm still not really sure.  They looked great against the Jets, then gave up 42 points against Miami.  Now it's the Patriots, a team I'm equally unsure about.  They rebounded from their loss to the Dolphins with a win in Pittsburgh, and now they finally get to play at home.  Will that be an advantage?  Or will the good Ravens team show up?

Bengals (0-2) at Jets (1-1): Cincinnati-Can the defending AFC champs really start 0-3?  They're playing the Jets, so I'm gonna say probably not.  Everybody got all giddy about the Jets winning last week, but let's not get carried away.  They were playing Cleveland!  And, yes, the Bengals are 0-2, but they've played Pittsburgh and Dallas, two much tougher opponents (yes, I'm aware Pittsburgh lost to Cleveland).  Although, Cincinnati did lose to the Jets at MetLife last season, so...

Eagles (2-0) at Commanders (1-1): Philadelphia-After that performance on Monday night, the Eagles are getting lots of well-deserved love.  They may, in fact, be the best team in the NFC.  At least they looked like it last week.  In the NFL, though, you never know what team you're gonna get from one week to the next!  Because this is the same team that barely beat Detroit in Week 1.  Things will probably be similar in Washington, including the result.

Saints (1-1) at Panthers (0-2): New Orleans-We've got an NFC South showdown in Charlotte.  The NFC South, which is the only division with two 0-2 teams.  Which is great for the two teams that aren't 0-2.  Although, frankly, I think the Panthers are staring at 0-3.  New Orleans is better.  At this point in the season, that's enough.

Jaguars (1-1) at Chargers (1-1): Chargers-Believe it or not, Jacksonville is currently in sole possession of first place!  Although, it's also kinda sad that they're the only team in the AFC South with a win this season!  Which means that the entire division could have sub-.500 records after this week.  Already!  After Week 3!  But that's what's likely to happen.  Especially since they ain't beating the Chargers!

Rams (1-1) at Cardinals (1-1): Rams-Not surprisingly, the Rams had a much better performance against the Falcons than they did against the Bills.  What is surprising is how the Cardinals came thisclose to being 0-2.  They needed that comeback against the Raiders to avoid that disaster.  But, when it comes to the NFC West, the division games are really what matter.  So this is a big one for both teams.

Falcons (0-2) at Seahawks (1-1): Seattle-Atlanta plays its second straight game on the West Coast.  The first one didn't go so well.  This one probably won't either.  It's true that the Seahawks aren't as good as the Rams, but the problem is the Falcons aren't as good as either of them.  Although, I must admit, I wasn't expecting Seattle to come into this game with a win already on the board.  They'll come out of it with two wins.

Packers (1-1) at Buccaneers (2-0): Tampa Bay-Rodgers vs. Brady, perhaps for the last time.  It's the Bucs' home opener too.  So, there was plenty of reason for FOX to make this their national game after both of these teams already got a Sunday night.  I know it's still early, but at this point in the season, I'd have to think Tampa has the advantage here.  Later in the season, I might think differently.  But the Packers, who lost their only road game so far, will need to prove me wrong.

49ers (1-1) at Broncos (1-1): Denver-I still don't know what to make of either of these teams.  And, fortunately, Yankees-Red Sox is the Sunday night baseball game, so I don't need to be subjected to this one on national television.  The game itself should be fine, but I just don't see why the NFL and NBC felt the need to make this a Sunday night game in Week 3.  Anyway, it's in Denver, so I'll go Broncos I guess.

Cowboys (1-1) at Giants (2-0): Dallas-All week, people have been jumping all over the Giants as the "worst" 2-0 team.  That very well may be true, but you know what?  They're still 2-0!  Will it last?  Probably not!  It might even end this week.  But there's also plenty of reason to be optimistic about this team after two games.  We'll at least get to see how they stack up against a Dallas team that hasn't looked as good as predicted so far.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 15-17-1

Let's Not Forget About Albert

As Aaron Judge continues his assault on the American League home run record, there's another equally remarkable home run record that we're going to see this season.  What once seemed impossible now seems incredibly likely.  Albert Pujols will get to 700.  And the fact that they'll both happen in the same season makes it that much more extraordinary.

When Albert returned to the Cardinals this year for one final season, it was seen as a nostalgic farewell tour.  Going back to his original team to say goodbye to baseball and thank you to Cardinals fans.  He'd DH a couple times a week, but certainly wasn't going to be the Albert Pujols who played for the Cardinals a decade ago.  The Albert Pujols who'll wear a Cardinals hat on his Hall of Fame plaque, have his number retired and get a statue outside Busch Stadium.

That Albert Pujols, of course, is long gone.  The current Albert Pujols is 42 years old and a part-time player.  Which, at this point in his career, is completely acceptable.  If used correctly, he can thrive in that role.  Which is exactly what we're seeing.  He's still got it!

You'd be forgiven if you thought he was done when he got cut by the Angels last year.  There are a number of reasons why his tenure in Anaheim ended so acrimoniously (his contract, needing to get Jared Walsh at-bats, Ohtani being locked in at DH, Albert not producing when he actually did play), but he would've called it a career if he thought he was done.  He clearly didn't think he was.  And he was right!

One of the most remarkable things I saw today about his pursuit of 700 is that he doesn't really care.  He's at peace with his decision to retire, whether he gets there or not.  In other words, he's not thinking about it.  Which I think is a big reason why he's gonna get there.

He entered this season 21 home runs shy of 700.  When he was in his prime, he could hit 21 home runs at the drop of a hat.  But, entering this season, it was a reasonable question to ask whether he'd be able to hit 21 this year or not.  For starters, would he get enough at-bats?  And would he be consistent enough in those at-bats to warrant somewhat-regular playing time?  Well, I think we know the answer to both of those questions!

And, frankly, the pursuit of 700 home runs aside, just seeing Albert Pujols's career renaissance is remarkable enough!  He went to the Dodgers last year with something to prove.  And he proved it!  So we should've known that his Cardinals reunion this season would end up being so much more than just a farewell tour.

As a part of that farewell tour, Albert was one of Rob Manfred's commissioner's selections for the All*Star Game.  He certainly didn't put up All*Star-like numbers in the first half, but there wasn't a single person who had a problem with the selection either.  In fact, most people viewed it as more of a lifetime achievement award that was completely warranted for a retiring future Hall of Famer.

Since the All*Star Break, though, Pujols has been on an absolute tear!  And suddenly 700 wasn't just possible, it was likely!  In August, he hit .361 with eight home runs...after hitting seven home runs total over the first four months of the season!  He's cooled down a little bit in September, but still has four more, and now he's only two away.

Just think about that.  Three men in the history of Major League Baseball have hit 700 home runs.  Barry Bonds, Hank Aaron and Babe Ruth.  Albert Pujols will become the fourth.  He won't catch Ruth for third place all-time, but so what?  Seven hundred is the nice, round number.  It's the number that Alex Rodriguez couldn't reach.  He was at 696 when he and the Yankees decided that was it in August of 2016.  (Who was called up to replace A-Rod on the Yankees' active roster the next day?  Why, that would be Aaron Judge!)

It's not just that he's gonna get there.  It's how!  Albert's had a career renaissance now that he's back in St. Louis.  He isn't the Albert Pujols of old.  But he's been good enough to warrant the "are you sure you still want to retire?" conversation.  At the beginning of the season, some thought his place on the team was nothing more than ceremonial and questioned if he warranted a guaranteed roster spot.  

Well, Albert hasn't just warranted a guaranteed roster spot, he's been a valuable piece in the Cardinals' lineup.  He can still mash lefties, just like he always has, and is the regular DH whenever St. Louis faces a left-handed starter.  And this is a lineup that features a pair of MVP candidates in Paul Goldschmidt and Nolan Arenado, mind you!  The Cardinals lead the NL Central and are rolling towards the playoffs and Albert hasn't just been along for the ride, he's been a huge part of it!

His pending retirement may actually be a big part of the reason why we're seeing a glimpse of the Albert Pujols of old.  He doesn't have that massive contract he's trying to justify, AND he knows this is the end.  There's no pressure, so he can go out there and do what he's done extraordinarily well for two decades!  That's how you can tell he's not thinking about 700.  If he was thinking about it, he wouldn't be anywhere near it.

Instead, Cardinals fans are being treated to so much more than just a farewell tour.  They get to watch Albert's pursuit of 700, and it's captured their attention just as much as Mark McGwire's pursuit of 62 in 1998.  Twenty-five years later, another slugger is on the verge of 62.  The fact that Aaron Judge and Albert Pujols are on their home run quests in the same season is pure coincidence.  But it's also what's made 2022 such a remarkable season.

But Ohtani Also Pitches...

That seems to be the only argument those who think Shohei Ohtani should win AL MVP over Aaron Judge ever make.  So, if I can follow their line of thinking, Ohtani should automatically win AL MVP every year until the end of his career because he has a unique skillset that's unlike anything Major League Baseball has ever seen before.  And it should also be held against everybody else that they can't do something only Ohtani can.

Count CC Sabathia, Judge's former teammate, among that group who thinks Ohtani should automatically be MVP just because.  When asked about it, CC somewhat controversially, said that if he had a vote, he would pick Ohtani over Judge.  Although, his argument pretty much came down to fanboying over Ohtani and calling him the "best player ever" repeatedly.  Which apparently, in CC's mind means we shouldn't even bother if Ohtani's healthy, since we should just give it to him every year.

Shohei Ohtani is a unique talent.  No one is denying that.  Watching him pitch seven innings and strike out seven while also hitting two home runs, then DHing the next night is truly remarkable.  There's no question that his ability to not only do both, but do both at such a high level makes Ohtani the best overall player in baseball right now.  But simply being the best player doesn't make you the MVP.

Yet still, there are those who are trying to make the case that the AL MVP race actually is or should be somewhat close.  It's not.  And I don't think it will be when the actual vote totals are revealed.  But the fact that so many people are talking about Ohtani are turning it into a conversation.  Well, they're trying to at least.

Now, I'm sure that some of these broadcasters and columnists know it'll actually be Judge, but are saying "Ohtani" simply because they need something to talk/write about and they want to start a debate.  There are also likely some of them who feel strongly that it should be Ohtani because they view the MVP as more of a "Best Player" award.  Then there's Option C, which I'm sure has also entered into the mindset of some, they just want to get Yankees fans riled up!

In fact, some of the most asinine comments from the Ohtani crowd is that Yankee fans "need to stop being biased" towards Judge.  The irony of statements like that is how those making them probably don't even realize how biased they are against Judge.  They don't like the Yankees and, by extension, Aaron Judge.  So, Yankee fans are wrong for thinking their guy is the MVP.  Meanwhile, if you took the team and player names away, it wouldn't even be a close comparison.

None of this is to diminish Ohtani.  At all.  But what have his otherworldly numbers gotten his team?  Yet another losing season.  So, how valuable is he when, despite having arguably the two best players on the planet, the team still isn't any good?  The Angels might lose more games without him, but it's not like they're winning a ton with him!

Judge, meanwhile, has been carrying a first-place team on his back all season.  When the Yankees sucked so bad in August that they looked like a Little League team out there, Judge was the one guy who actually looked like he still knew how to hit.  They've won games solely because of Aaron Judge this season, and the Yankees are headed to the playoffs.

There's also this little tidbit that has gone somewhat unnoticed because of his monster offensive numbers, but I think it's one of the biggest reasons for the Yankees' success this season.  Judge moved to center field to make the team better.  His being willing to switch positions allowed Giancarlo Stanton to play the outfield and opened up the DH spot, giving Aaron Boone so many more options with his lineup (it also made it so that he didn't have to start Aaron Hicks and/or Joey Gallo).  This is a team that has five starting infielders, mind you, so somebody would've had to sit if Stanton was locked into the DH spot.

Now let's talk about what he's done offensively.  The most obvious thing is that he's going to break the franchise and American League single-season home run record.  He's going to do this despite only getting a handful of pitches to hit every night.  Judge may get one pitch per at-bat.  He makes sure he does something with it.  And, again, how many times has he come up with the clutch hit (not necessarily a home run) that gave the Yankees the victory?

One guy used as his argument "All Judge does is hit home runs," which anyone who's watched a second of baseball this season (or taken the 30 seconds to look up the stats) knows is categorically FALSE!  Judge, in fact, leads either the Majors or the AL in EVERY major offensive category except for batting average, where he's currently third (just one point behind Luis Arraez).  So, after he gets to 62, it'll be the Judge Triple Crown watch, which is suddenly a realistic pursuit.

The last time somebody won the Triple Crown, it was Miguel Cabrera in 2012.  And Miggy had to deal with a lot of the same crap in his Triple Crown year.  All anyone would talk about was how Mike Trout deserved to be MVP over him because of Trout's WAR.

You know my feelings on WAR, but if you want to talk about it, let's talk about it.  Judge's WAR is 9.2.  Ohtani's is 8.7.  And that's his pitching and hitting combined!  So, even when combining his pitching and hitting stats, Ohtani's WAR is still half a point below Judge's!  Yet you're still telling me that this guy deserves to be MVP over Judge?  Please!

It's true that Ohtani was the unanimous AL MVP last season over Vladimir Guerrero, Jr.  There are two major differences between 2021 and 2022, though.  Last season, Ohtani and Guerrero were neck-and-neck offensively while Ohtani was also putting up great pitching numbers in the first season the Angels really let him do both full-time.  This year, Ohtani's offensive numbers don't compare to what he did last year (yet are still really good).  Judge, meanwhile, is having a historic offensive season!

I also come back to this.  Ohtani is the only guy who pitches and hits!  So is that really a fair criterion to use for your comparison?  You can't hold the fact that Ohtani does something no one else can do against everybody else!  Especially since it's not the "Best" Player Award.  It's the "Most Valuable" Player Award.  And, sorry, but this year, it's no contest.

As great as Shohei Ohtani is, he's not the AL MVP.  Aaron Judge is having a historic season.  As much as 2021 was Ohtani's year, 2022 is Judge's.  Fortunately, enough people realize that to make this stupid "debate" unnecessary.  Ohtani's great.  Judge is the MVP.  And, frankly, it's not even that close.

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 2)

Well, last week was...not good!  I guess that's what happens when you forget about your picks until 12:30 in the morning when you're watching a tennis match!  Or maybe I can just blame it on Week 1 being Week 1, when you don't actually know who's good yet.  And at least I'm off to a good start in Week 2, getting the Chiefs-Chargers game right.  Now on to the rest of Week 2...

Thursday Night: Kansas City (Win)

Jets (0-1) at Browns (1-0): Cleveland-Of all the games I picked incorrectly last week, I was most disappointed to see Cleveland win.  As you know, I just have an uncomfortable feeling about the Browns and how everything went down with Baker Mayfield and DeShaun Watson, and I was sooo looking forward to Mayfield getting his revenge!  It didn't happen, obviously, and now Cleveland has a very realistic shot at starting 2-0.

Commanders (1-0) at Lions (0-1): Washington-Detroit is the favorite for the first time since Week 11 of 2020.  So clearly enough people were encouraged by their performance last week against Philadelphia.  Either that or they were left uninspired by the Commanders' win over Jacksonville.  Or maybe both.  Regardless, I think Washington is a better team than Detroit.  Thus, the Commanders are the pick.

Buccaneers (1-0) at Saints (1-0): New Orleans-As much as Tom Brady may own the Dallas Cowboys, the New Orleans Saints seem to be the one team that has his number.  Does that mean Tampa still won't win the NFC South?  Not necessarily.  But playing early in the season is certainly another thing working in the Saints' favor here.  I think they get this one.

Panthers (0-1) at Giants (1-0): Giants-How about that Brian Daboll!  He goes for the win, the Giants get the two-point conversion, and they start the season with a win for the first time in forever.  Now they play the Panthers, who I think they're better than.  Can the 1-0 Giants actually become the 2-0 Giants?  I'd actually be surprised if they don't.

Patriots (0-1) at Steelers (1-0): Pittsburgh-Mark my words, the Pittsburgh Steelers are gonna be a force to be reckoned with this season.  People aren't expecting a lot out of them, and I think that's the reason why they'll be formidable every week against whoever they play.  Tough start for the Patriots to have back-to-back road games in Weeks 1 & 2.  The good news is they finally get to play in Foxboro next week.  The bad news is they'll be 0-2 when they do.

Colts (0-0-1) at Jaguars (0-1): Jacksonville-For some reason, the Colts cannot beat the Jaguars.  Last season, they went into Jacksonville in Week 18 needing just a tie to make the playoffs...and lost!  It was something like their fifth straight loss in Jacksonville.  So why should I think this year would be any different?

Dolphins (1-0) at Ravens (1-0): Baltimore-Beating the Jets isn't exactly an indication of how good a team actually is.  Especially early in the season.  But I did like what I saw from the Ravens last week.  I also liked what I saw from the Dolphins, but how much of that can be attributed to their propensity to beat the Patriots in Miami?  I guess we'll find out this week.  About both teams.

Falcons (0-1) at Rams (0-1): Rams-The Rams are a better team than that opening night performance against Buffalo.  And they've been sitting on that loss for a looooonnnnng time.  So you know they really want to put on a good show in Week 2.  Playing the Falcons will certainly help with that.  Atlanta's not a good team.

Seahawks (1-0) at 49ers (0-1): San Francisco-Who had the Seahawks in sole possession of first place at any point this season?  Yet that's exactly where they are after being the only NFC West team to win last week.  Frankly, I expected San Francisco to be the one coming into this game with a 1-0 record, but they didn't look good at all against the Bears.  Maybe being at home will be the recipe for success.

Bengals (0-1) at Cowboys (0-1): Cincinnati-I know it was only one game, but I'm not feeling so good about my Cowboys Super Bowl pick right now.  They had absolutely no offense against Tampa Bay WITH Dak, so I really wonder how bad it's gonna be without him.  Sorry, but they're gonna have to show me.  That's why I'm going with the Bengals.

Texans (0-0-1) at Broncos (0-1): Denver-Your team spends all this money on Russell Wilson, has a makeable 4th-and-5 and, instead of going for it, you decide to attempt a 64-yard field goal?!  Sorry, Nathaniel Hackett, but being a rookie coach doesn't give you a pass for making such a rookie move.  It was dumb.  Plain and simple.  And the Broncos deserved to lose because of it.  Hopefully he actually tries to win the game this week.

Cardinals (0-1) at Raiders (0-1): Las Vegas-Arizona's performance was perhaps the most disappointing of anybody's last week.  They got blown out so badly, CBS switched off the game and went to Raiders-Chargers.  That game was only marginally better, but at least it was close.  Now the two of them meet each other.  Since the Cardinals need to show me something, especially on the road, I'm going Raiders.

Bears (1-0) at Packers (0-1): Green Bay-Maybe Aaron Rodgers should consider actually playing in the preseason.  Because the Packers keep treating Week 1 like it's a preseason game.  Of course, last year's Week 1 blowout loss to New Orleans didn't really seem to faze them on the way to their annual playoff loss.  And I doubt this year's Week 1 loss to Minnesota will have much of an effect either.

Titans (0-1) at Bills (1-0): Buffalo-There was perhaps no team more impressive in Week 1 than the Bills, who looked every bit like the Super Bowl favorite many say they are.  And that was against a really good Rams team!  Now it's their home opener against the Titans, who lost at home to the Giants.  Tennessee's still probably the favorite in the AFC South (where nobody won last week), but they're staring at an 0-2 start to the season.

Vikings (1-0) at Eagles (1-0): Philadelphia-Part II of the Monday night "doubleheader" (that isn't actually a doubleheader) sees Joe and Troy headed to Philadelphia.  That was a really solid performance by the Vikings last week.  Some might even argue it was one of the most impressive showings by anybody this side of Buffalo and Kansas City.  Unfortunately, I don't think it carries over against the Eagles.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 6-9-1 (I know...bad!)
Season: 7-9-1 

I'm a Roger Guy...Always Have Been, Always Will Be

As my regular readers know, I'm not a fan of Rafael Nadal.  There are many reasons for this, but, whenever somebody asks me why I don't like Rafa, I only need to give them one.  "Because I'm a Roger guy."  And, as a "Roger guy," I couldn't bring myself to ever cheer for Nadal.  (I know they're friends in real life, but that doesn't change my opinion of Rafa as a player.)

Serena Williams, of course, got that dramatic send-off at the US Open (which may not actually be her final tournament after all).  Roger was trying to come back, but his body told him "No," so he listened to it.  And, in a way, it's kind of fitting that his last Grand Slam match ended up being at Wimbledon last year.  Because that's the tournament he'll always be associated with the most.

I remember when I first heard about Roger Federer.  He was this up-and-comer who was touted as the next great player when he beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon in 2001, when Sampras was the four-time defending champion.  Well, I think it's safe to say the experts were right about him!  Roger wasn't just the "next great player," he's arguably the greatest player ever!  (Although, I do think Djokovic will surpass him for that title, if he hasn't already.)

Roger's retirement, as well as the recent retirement of Ben Roethlisberger and the pending retirement of Albert Pujols really make me feel old!  You can even throw Allyson Felix and Sue Bird in there if you want.  I'm the same age as all these people, so that's probably the reason why it's hitting so hard.  My generation is no longer the prime age for professional athletes.

So, yeah, I'm bummed I'll never see Roger play again.  I'll never see that brilliant one-handed backhand.  I'll never see someone who makes playing tennis look so beautiful and effortless at the same time.  That's the biggest difference between Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.  Rafa and Novak make you work for every point, and you can always tell how hard they're working.  Roger made everything look easy and never looked tired.  You could never tell if it was the first game of the match or deep into the fifth set.  His expression was the same.

There's a cruel irony to Roger's career being ended by chronic injuries, too.  Because for the longest time, he was never hurt!  One thing you could always count on was Roger Federer playing in a Grand Slam (and most likely making it deep into the second week).  In fact, until he missed the 2016 French Open, he hadn't missed a Slam since the 1999 US Open (when he lost in qualifying).  That's 16 consecutive years of playing in all four Grand Slam tournaments!  He'd only play all four in the same year once after that, in 2019.

Watching him in his prime was something special, too!  When he lost in the second round of Wimbledon in 2013, it snapped a streak of 36 straight Grand Slam quarterfinals.  That's nine years!  Nine! Freakin'! Years! making it to at least the quarters at every Slam!  That streak included 10 consecutive Grand Slam finals from 2005-07, then, after an Australian Open semifinal loss, eight more from 2008-10 (so, that's 18 out of 19 over those five years).

Still, there's one thing Roger never won--Olympic gold in singles.  In 2012, the Olympics were at Wimbledon.  He lost in the final to Andy Murray.  That silver was his only Olympic singles medal, but he did win doubles gold with Stan Wawrinka in 2008.  The two of them also led Switzerland to its first Davis Cup title in 2014, so I doubt you'll hear him complain about that.

You, of course, can't talk about Federer without also talking about Nadal and Djokovic.  We'll never see anything like the Big Three Era again.  The three of them made each other better, much to the dismay of every other player on tour.  Roger was the first to 20 Grand Slams.  The other two have since surpassed him.  So what?  That doesn't take anything away from Roger's greatness.  (And the fact that they have 63 Grand Slam titles between them is just absurd!)

If there's one unfortunate thing about the timing of Roger's career-ending injuries, it might be the fact that he never got the chance to punch back once Rafa and Novak passed him.  After Djokovic won Wimbledon last year, it was a three-way tie at 20, which we were all looking forward to seeing broken at the US Open.  That, of course, never happened, and Roger's now in third place on the all-time list (which was likely going to happen anyway seeing as they're both younger than him).

Part of what made the Big Three Era so special was that they all had ownership of a specific Grand Slam.  Nadal, of course, wins the French Open every year, and Djokovic has won the Australian Open nine times.  Roger's tournament is and will always be Wimbledon.  He won it eight times, including five straight from 2003-07 (he also won five straight US Opens from 2004-08).  So, it's perhaps fitting that Roger's goodbye to Grand Slam tennis was that ceremony at Wimbledon this year celebrating 100 years of Centre Court.

Perhaps my favorite Roger Federer moment came after he won his final Wimbledon title in 2017.  Prince William & Kate were the first ones to greet him after he went up the stairs into the clubhouse (well, the first ones after his wife!).  And the then-Duchess of Cambridge got the triple cheek kiss!  It's a traditional greeting elsewhere in Europe, but in Great Britain, it's considered a tremendous breach of royal protocol.  For anyone except Roger Federer!  (She didn't seem to mind, either.)

My other favorite Federer moment at Wimbledon was the 2009 final against Andy Roddick.  Roger won 16-14 in the fifth and, in his on-court interview after the match, I'll never forget what Roddick said, "Maybe I need to punch him or something."  It spoke perfectly to the frustration Roddick must've felt about getting to so many Grand Slam finals...and always losing to Federer!

At the US Open, another tournament Roger won five times in a row, two losses stand out.  The first is the 2009 final against Juan Martin Del Potro, which was the first of five straight rain-delayed Monday finals, where he lost in five to snap his 40-match US Open winning streak.  I bring up the roof because a few years later, I went to a Lady Gaga concert at Citi Field in the pouring rain...while Roger was playing his match next door under the roof.

Then, of course, there was that epic semifinal against Djokovic the following year, when Roger had two match points in the fifth set, but Djokovic saved them both (including one with a ridiculous backhand!) and eventually ended up winning.  It's one of two epic losses to the other members of the Big Three, along with that 2008 Wimbledon final against Nadal that had like six rain delays!

This last stat is perhaps the most shocking...Federer and Nadal never met at the US Open!  It almost happened a few times, but one of them lost the round before the potential matchup each time.  So, that's the one match we would've loved to see but won't get the chance to.  It's fun to imagine how electric a packed Arthur Ashe Stadium would've been for that one though!  And you know who I would've been cheering for in it!

More Seattle and Vegas Expansion?

Back in the Spring, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said that the league wasn't considering expansion "at this time."  Well, he either wasn't telling the truth then or the owners' opinions changed rapidly.  Because rumor has it, Silver's ready to announce the NBA's 31st and 32nd franchises at preseason games that are scheduled to be played in Seattle and Las Vegas.  Hmm, I wonder why those two cities...

The fact that the NBA wants to expand isn't surprising.  Neither is the fact that Seattle and Las Vegas are the rumored cities.  Seattle's been first in line to get a new team ever since the Sonics left, and everyone pretty much expected the NBA to be the one that finally pulled the trigger on Vegas.  Now the NHL and NFL have both beaten them to it and they've seen how much the Golden Knights are thriving, so now they really want to stake their claim.

So, it was really more a matter of when the NBA would decide to expand to Seattle and Las Vegas than if that would happen.  And it would be shocking if they choose to put a team anywhere else.  Frankly, I can't even think of another city that could be a potential NBA expansion candidate.  

There are two other reasons that Seattle and Las Vegas are the obvious choices.  One, the NHL recently expanded to both cities, and both of those arenas were built with basketball also in mind, so they both have an NBA-ready arena.  Two, they both have a successful WNBA team (the Seattle Storm and Las Vegas Aces), so there's already that basketball presence in the city and the cross-promotional opportunity that comes with it.

Expanding to Seattle and Las Vegas would also help balance the NBA, which is badly needed.  Right now, the Blazers are on an island as the only team in the Pacific Northwest.  Giving Seattle its team back would obviously remedy that situation.  Las Vegas is, obviously, also in the West, so that would also give them a chance to balance out the conferences and move either Memphis or New Orleans to the East where they belong.

Adding those two will make realignment a necessity, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Because, frankly, some of the NBA divisions don't make a whole lot of sense.  And, seeing as they essentially ignore the divisions when it comes to playoff qualification and seeding, would they consider dropping divisions entirely and just do a straight conference-based table?

While it would be extreme, I wouldn't put it past the NBA to try something like that.  Especially since they seem committed to this ridiculous in-season tournament idea, which would count as regular season games.  I have no idea how they plan to work a schedule that includes an in-season tournament (unless they do it like the WNBA Commissioner's Cup).

Completely scrapping divisions might just be a little too extreme, though.  Which is why I don't think it'll happen.  Even though winning your division doesn't get you anything in terms of the postseason, winning the division still means something.  That alone is enough of a reason to keep them.  And, frankly, they'd make scheduling a lot easier, too.

For argument's sake, let's say the NBA divides its 32 teams into four divisions of eight, just like the NHL.  It wouldn't surprise me if they looked to the NHL as the inspiration for their schedule, either.  You know whatever they do, they're keeping the two games against the other conference, which is 32 total games.  Three against each of the other 15 teams in your conference is 45, which leaves five more to play as a fourth game against all but two division opponents (which is the NHL's schedule format...frankly, I think the NHL should go to an 84-game schedule so they can play four against every division opponent).

Or, if this in-season tournament is actually going to become a reality, they could set up the divisions in a way that leaves room in the schedule for those games.  And if they were to set up the divisions like the NFL (eight of four), that would only be three teams they play a fourth time, which leaves two games for the in-season tournament (against whoever), which I think could work.

As for how those eight groups of four would be divided, it's actually pretty easy for the most part.  It gets a little complicated with all the teams in the Midwest, but I'll get to that.  I'll start with the two that are really easy.

Seattle and Las Vegas are both in the Pacific time zone, which makes eight on the West Coast.  Well, that's convenient.  Lakers, Clippers, Suns and Las Vegas in the Pacific "South", Warriors, Kings, Blazers and Sonics in the Pacific "North."  Then you put the three Texas teams with either New Orleans or Oklahoma City.  Actually, I'd put them with New Orleans, since putting the Thunder with Denver, Utah and Minnesota (who they're currently in a division with) makes more sense.

That's the West.  The East is where it gets tricky.  I'll start with the easy one.  The Northeast would be the Celtics, Knicks, Nets and Sixers.  Then I'm putting Charlotte with Atlanta and the Florida teams.  Why?  Because Washington's further north, and someone needs to go with Cleveland, Toronto and Detroit.  Which leaves the Bulls, Pacers, Bucks and Grizzlies to complete the fourth division of the Eastern Conference.

I, of course, have no idea what the NBA plans on doing with the divisions and schedule once Seattle and Las Vegas officially join the league.  It hasn't even been confirmed that Seattle and Las Vegas are definitely getting NBA expansion teams.  Right now it's just rumors.  But, who are we kidding?  It's only "rumored" because it's not official yet.  Whether they announce it in the coming weeks or later, Las Vegas and Seattle will be getting NBA teams.

The Torch Has Been Passed

As truly remarkable as it's been to watch the Big Three dominate men's tennis over the past two decades, we all knew that it end eventually.  And, with age and injuries catching up to both Federer and Nadal, we knew that day was coming relatively soon.  In fact, it's very possible that day has arrived.  Because this year's US Open was likely the coronation of the next great tennis champion.

Carlos Alcaraz is the US Open champion, and boy did he deserve it!  Three straight night matches that went five sets, two of which ended in the wee hours (including the latest finish in US Open history!)  Even the final, which only took four sets, lasted nearly four hours!  But it was all worth it.  Alcaraz, at 19, became the youngest US Open champion since Pete Sampras in 1990 and, much more significantly, became the youngest No. 1 ever!

And, frankly, Alcaraz's ascent to the top isn't all that surprising.  You could tell there was something special about him during his first run through the Grand Slam tournaments last year, and he backed it up this year with an incredible clay court season in the Spring.  It's not a stretch at all to suggest there are more Grand Slam trophies in his future.  Or that he'll be at the top of the men's game for a while!

We've been waiting for that guy to come around.  The one who would disturb the balance and regularly challenge the Big Three.  Of course, he didn't have to play any of them.  Federer and Djokovic weren't even there, and Nadal lost two rounds before he would've faced Alcaraz.  That doesn't take one iota away from his rise to the top, though.  Because, as I said, we needed a star for the post-Big Three Era.  And Alcaraz just might be it!

He's not even remotely close to alone, either.  The man he beat in the final, Casper Ruud, reached two Grand Slam finals this year.  Daniil Medvedev was the defending champion and isn't going anywhere.  Medvedev's title defense was ended by Nick Kyrgios, the Wimbledon finalist who may finally be living up to his massive potential.  And this list doesn't even include Olympic gold medalist Alexander Zverev. who's been out since that devastating ankle injury at the French Open but will most certainly be back.

For a long time, it was tough to envision what men's tennis would look like without Federer, Djokovic and Nadal.  It's no longer that hard.  This US Open gave us a glimpse of what to expect.  And, with new No. 1 Alcaraz leading the way, that future looks great.

Djokovic and Nadal aren't going away just yet, of course.  And Federer, hopefully, will be able to come back and say goodbye properly in 2023.  But their long era of dominance is over.  And, frankly, it's exciting to see what tennis without them will look like. 

Likewise, this US Open represented a changing of the guard on the women's side.  The entire first week was a Serena Williams lovefest, and rightfully so!  She's meant so much to not just women's tennis, but tennis as a whole, that she deserved all of it.  After she lost, though, officially ending her brilliant career, the second week became all about the new faces.

And, just like so many US Opens before, it was somebody new who hoisted the trophy.  World No. 1 Iga Swiatek has won the French Open twice, so her US Open title isn't completely out of the blue like Emma Raducanu or Bianca Andreescu.  And, just like her male counterpart Alcaraz, Swiatek may become the face of a new era in women's tennis.

On the women's side, that new era has been on its way for the past few years.  Serena's last Grand Slam title was in 2017, and all four Grand Slams have been wide open ever since then.  Case in point: all eight quarterfinalists at the US Open had never gotten that far in the tournament before.

The ironic thing about Swiatek winning is how she made news prior to the tournament about the tennis balls and ended up winning the whole thing.  Her point about the tennis balls was a good one, too.  At the US Open, the men use "heavy duty" balls and the women don't.  It's the only Grand Slam that uses different balls for men and women.  Why?  (I have no doubt this will be changed next year.)

That easily could've been an excuse and seen as the "reason" why Swiatek lost.  You know it would've been brought up in the press conference had that happened!  Instead, she said, "You know what?  It doesn't matter what type of balls we're using.  I'm gonna win the tournament anyway!"  Solidifying her status as the best women's player in the world at the moment.

They're both US Open champions, and they're both No. 1 in the world, but there's one big difference between Alcaraz and Swiatek.  Swiatek was already No. 1.  The US Open wasn't her coming out party.  That was the 2020 French Open.  So, you could argue that the changing of the guard in the women's game started two years ago!

Just like Alcaraz gave us a glimpse of what men's tennis will look like without the Big Three, Swiatek showed us what women's tennis can be without Serena Williams.  Does it look different?  Absolutely!  Will tennis be just fine?  Without a doubt!

Loving the Rule Changes

Unlike the last time MLB made multiple major rule changes at once (the beyond-stupid seven-inning doubleheaders and even dumber free runner in extra innings), I'm totally on board with the ones that were announced on Friday and will be implemented next season.  In fact, I'm beyond on board with them.  I'm excited about them!  It's stuff I've been wanting to see for quite a while now!

Let's start with the most obvious, and the one that will have the biggest and most obvious immediate impact.  Much to the delight of left-handed hitters everywhere, the shift will be BANNED!  No more positioning your second baseman in short right field or playing with four outfielders.  Instead, you'll have to play a traditional defense.  Two infielders on the left side, two on the right, and all four of them with their feet on the dirt.

The shift has become more and more prominent in recent years, and it has become the bane of left-handed hitters' existence.  It's a result of this new analytics-driven age that has taken over the game.  But, as batting averages around the Majors continued to go down year after year, it was pretty clear it was a result of the shift and something had to be done about it.

Critics of the rule change, of course, argue that left-handed hitters should "learn to hit the other way," as if it's that easy to just completely change their swing!  Those critics are the minority, however.  And they don't see the larger picture. 

Most fans absolutely hate the shift!  Balls that should be seeing-eye singles (and were until about five years ago) are suddenly turning into groundouts because the second baseman is standing in right field.  Teams are turning 6-5-3 double plays because their third baseman is the only infielder on the left side, so he has to play in the shortstop position.  Teams are playing with only three infielders so they can turn it into slow-pitch softball and have four outfielders.  Or, perhaps the most annoying positioning of all, infielders move around between pitches! so that they're best positioned for where the ball is most likely to be hit!

So, yeah, it's not as simple as "lefties should just bunt or learn how to hit the other way."  Is it a surprise, then, that lefties instead turned to trying to hit the ball out of the ballpark rather than on the ground, resulting in more strikeouts?

Beyond that, from a fan perspective, it's so unappealing to watch.  Fewer hits means fewer baserunners means less action.  And it's just as frustrating to see a ball that should be a hit instead turn into a 130-foot groundout to short right field because of that stupid hourglass defense!  It was annoying enough when it was just the Rays.  Then everybody started doing it and it got out of control!  So, yes, something had to be done!

Now let's talk about the pitch clock, which is being introduced entirely as a means to shorten games.  This also seemed inevitable after having the desired effect in the Minors.  Since they started using the pitch clock, Minor League games have clocked in right around two and a half hours.  Major League games usually hover around three, with a lot of dead time in between, which, if you ask me is more the problem than the actual length of the games.

For some pitchers, the pitch clock won't be a problem.  They get the ball and they're ready to go.  There are others who take painfully long!  They used to call Steve Trachsel the "Human Rain Delay" because it took him so long between pitches, and, I didn't realize this until I saw him pitch live this season, but Shohei Ohtani takes FOREVER!  Even with nobody on base!  I continually found myself screaming "Pitch the ball!" at him.

Next season, they'll only have 15 seconds with no one on base and 20 if there are runners on.  That, frankly, is plenty of time, especially now that teams have the ability to use PitchComm (which often leaves the pitcher standing there ready to go and waiting for the batter).  The clock will impact the hitter, too.  They have to be in the box with eight seconds left or else it's an automatic strike (it's an automatic ball if the pitcher goes over).

My favorite part of the pitch clock, though, has nothing to do with the pitch clock itself.  It has to do with the fact that pitchers can't continually throw over to first for no reason other than to stall.  That, frankly, is as painful to watch as the defensive shifts.  (I've had plenty of games where I was umpiring when a team used pickoff attempts simply to run out the clock in a time-limited game.)

They can still throw over.  The pickoff is still a part of the game, and no one was suggesting it be taken out.  They're just saying it can't be used as a stall tactic anymore.  You get two free ones.  If you throw over a third time and you don't get him, it's a balk.  So, there's definitely a risk/reward element to it.  They're also limiting the number of times the pitcher can step off per plate appearance.  Again, simply to prevent it from being used as a stall tactic.

One of the things they hope will come back as a result of these changes is the stolen base.  Back in the 80s, the stolen base was a huge weapon.  In the modern, analytics-based game, it's practically nonexistent.  The MLB leader is the Marlins' Jon Berti, who has a whopping 32!  The team with the most stolen bases?  The Rangers, with 113 (which is an average of 0.8 per game).
 
Another reason the number of stolen bases might go up is because the size of the bases will be increasing from 15" to 18".  While that doesn't sound like a lot, it means second base is three inches closer.  And that three inches can make a huge difference, especially on bang-bang plays that require multiple replays to see whether the runner was safe or not.  The argument behind the bigger bases is that they'll improve player safety, but I think the impact on stolen bases is just as significant.

While these are the only three changes that were voted on and approved on Friday, there may be others.  The new Competition Committee, a group of players, team executives and an umpire representative that was created as a result of the new CBA, will continue to meet and may suggest some smaller changes.  There's also no word on whether they'll keep the extra innings free runner for a fourth consecutive season (or permanently), but I think you all already know my thoughts on that.

Even if they don't suggest any other changes, though, these three alone will likely result in a much-improved product in 2023.  And that was the ultimate goal.  Making the game more watchable.  Getting rid of the infield shift and implementing a pitch clock should achieve just that.

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 1)

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the 2022 NFL season!  And, more importantly, welcome to Year 12 of my weekly NFL picks!  For those of you who are new (or just need a refresher), there are two important things about my weekly picks you need to know: 1. I'm picking straight winners.  I don't pick against the spread or care what it is.  The standings only count who actually wins the game, not how they do against the spread.  2. I'll make a pick for the Thursday night game, but the full slate of picks generally won't be revealed until the weekend.

There are two exceptions to the Thursday night rule.  The first is Thanksgiving, for reasons that should be obvious.  The second is Week 1.  The NFL has made such a big deal about the Kickoff game hosted by the defending Super Bowl champion that it's one of the most significant games on the schedule.  It also wouldn't feel right to let the season start without picking the actual first game of the year.  So, with that, here we go...

Bills at Rams: Rams-The season begins with a matchup that many people feel may also be the one that ends it.  It's also crazy how the Rams will be the home team in three straight games that are the only one on the schedule (NFC Championship, Super Bowl, Kickoff).  You can't fault the NFL for going with this matchup.  It just sucks that one of them will start the season 0-1.  I think that team will be the Bills.  I just don't see the Rams losing the night their championship banner is raised.

Saints at Falcons: New Orleans-It wasn't too long ago that the Saints were a legit playoff contender and a lock to win double-digit games every year.  That wasn't the case last season, as they were getting used to not having Drew Brees.  Things will be better this year.  The Falcons, meanwhile, are in full-on rebuild.  Which is why I'm going with New Orleans.

49ers at Bears: San Francisco-Will Jimmy Garoppolo coming back be a good thing or a bad thing for the 49ers?  I don't think they were expecting to have him, but they're also probably a better team with him.  They're better than Chicago regardless, so I would've been picking San Francisco in this game with or without Garoppolo.

Steelers at Bengals: Cincinnati-I'm very curious to see how this season will go in Cincinnati.  The Bengals aren't sneaking up on anybody anymore.  In fact, they've become the hunted.  I'm curious about the Steelers, too.  It's been a long time since they had somebody other than Ben Roethlisberger under center.  How will they respond to Mitch Trubisky?  Perhaps the better question is how will Trubisky respond to finally getting out of Chicago?  We'll start to get some answers about both teams.

Eagles at Lions: Philadelphia-After last season's playoff berth, I'm really high on the Eagles this year.  I'm not entirely sure why, but I really like them.  Starting the season in Detroit is certainly a nice way to feel good about yourselves, too.  The Rams obviously got the better of the Jared Goff-Matthew Stafford swap.  Goff enters Year 2 in Detroit no closer to a ring than he was in Year 1.

Patriots at Dolphins: Miami-Even when Brady was in New England, the Dolphins were always the one team that gave the Patriots trouble.  Especially in Miami.  Now that the teams are much more evenly matched, that's especially true.  Is New England slightly better?  Probably.  But not better enough for that alone to make a difference.  Miami wins this one.

Ravens at Jets: Baltimore-Congratulations to the Jets on going undefeated in the preseason!  Too bad that doesn't matter for anything!  And they'll get a reality check from the Ravens.  Baltimore missed the playoffs last season because of a terrible December.  But let's not forget how good they were in the first half of 2021.  They get off to another good start.

Jaguars at Commanders: Washington-A new era begins in our nation's capital, as the Commanders play their first regular season game.  There are worse opponents for a team looking to start fresh than the Jaguars.  Jacksonville should be much better now that Urban Meyer and all the dysfunction that came with him are far in the rearview mirror.  They'll be much more competitive in games this season.  Unfortunately, I don't see it translating to a win here, though.

Browns at Panthers: Carolina-Can I just say how badly I want Baker Mayfield to crush his former team in this game?  I'm talking like 38-3 crushing.  The Browns did him incredibly dirty, so it's kinda fitting that he'll get the chance to take it to them in the opener.  And who'll be Cleveland's starter with their fine upstanding citizen of a quarterback suspended?  Why, Jacoby Brissett of course!  An obvious upgrade over Mayfield!

Colts at Texans: Indianapolis-Matt Ryan's second act begins in Houston.  Is he the missing piece for the Colts?  And how will being freed from the DeShaun Watson circus impact the Texans?  Don't get me wrong.  Houston's still one of the worst teams in the NFL.  They just won't be as bad this season.  Enough to beat the Colts, though?  That I'm not so sure.

Giants at Titans: Tennessee-While they haven't had the playoff success, so what they've done in the regular season has gotten a little overshadowed, the Titans have been one of the better teams in the league over the past few years.  And there's no reason to believe this season will be any different.  Just give the ball to Derrick Henry and let him run.  It's simple, really.

Packers at Vikings: Green Bay-This is FOX's national game, so it's the first game Kevin Burkhart and Greg Olsen will call as the network's No. 1 crew.  They'd better get used to seeing the Green Bay Packers.  Because the NFL and FOX love putting them in doubleheader late games!  This one should be your typical Packers-Vikings game.  Somewhat close, but not really, then Green Bay ends up getting a late score to win.

Chiefs at Cardinals: Arizona-Another interconference matchup where saying it could be a Super Bowl preview isn't too big of a stretch.  I think the Cardinals are slightly better than they were last season, while the Chiefs might be slightly worse.  Which isn't to say Kansas City isn't still one of the absolute elite teams in the NFL.  I think it's enough to make a difference, though.  Especially against a Cardinals team that plays well at home.

Raiders at Chargers: Chargers-Remember last season's finale, when the Raiders were content to settle for a tie so that they could both make the playoffs, only to kick a field goal at the end and knock the Chargers out?  Well, someone in the NFL schedule-maker's office certainly does!  And that person has a sick sense of humor!  The stakes aren't nearly as high in Week 1, but knowing how tight the AFC West figures to be, this is actually a pretty big game for both of them.  And, dare I say it could impact their playoff chances?

Buccaneers at Cowboys: Dallas-As I said the other day, I'm not jumping on this "Tampa Bay is the best team" bandwagon.  I also seem to have more faith in the Dallas Cowboys than some others, but I think this is their chance to send an early message.  Take the Cowboys lightly at your own risk.  This should be a fun, entertaining, back-and-forth game where the team that has the ball last wins.  That team will be Dallas.

Broncos at Seahawks: Denver-Joe and Troy's Monday night debut takes them to the Pacific Northwest, where the Seahawks find themselves in the odd position of being in rebuilding mode.  It'll also be super weird for the 12th Man to see Russell Wilson playing for the opponent.  Especially in Week 1.  Russell's return to Seattle will be a happy one for him.  Not so much for the Seahawks.

My 2022 NFL Preview (NFC)

When you get down to the bottom of this post and see my NFC playoff teams, you'll notice something.  They're the exact same teams as last season!  I didn't deliberately set out to have them all be the same, but as I went through each team's schedule and began picking winners for each game, it kinda just happened.  And there's a reason for that.  It's because those seven teams are simply better than the other nine in the NFC!

Unlike in the AFC, where there are a few really good teams, a few really bad teams, and everyone else sort of in the middle, the NFC is an exercise in extremes.  There are a lot of NFC teams that will probably be really bad.  Which means the usual suspects will once again run away with their divisions and only have to worry about their playoff seed.  The exception is the NFC West, which landed three playoff teams last season and very well could again this year.

Still, there has to be somebody who can break into that playoff group, right?  Who might that team be?  Well, if I had to pick anybody, I'd say maybe Minnesota or New Orleans, but even they would need a lot of things to go right, and I just don't see it.  In fact, I have the seven playoff teams all winning at least 10 games and the nine non-playoff teams (including the Saints and Vikings) all losing at least 10.

NFC East: This looks like a two-horse race between the Cowboys and Eagles.  Dallas has, arguably, the most talent in the league.  I've been saying this for a few years now.  So far, they've had nothing to show for it, though.  Last year's playoff berth by the Eagles was a bit of a surprise, but this year it certainly won't be.  In fact, I see these two duking it out for the division title all season.

As for the Giants and Commanders, I think they'll both be better this season.  The problem is, when you weren't that good to begin with, "better" sometimes only means "slightly less bad."  Still, improvement could be a key for both of those teams.  The Giants have been so bad for a while that they just need a glimmer of hope.  Having both Saquon Barkley and Kayvon Thibodeaux stay healthy all season could go a long way in providing that hope.  The Commanders, meanwhile, finally have an identity again after two years as the "Football Team" (a "name" which, as you know, I didn't even acknowledge).

NFC North: We all know how things in the NFC North are gonna go.  The Packers are gonna wrap up the division title at midseason and coast to their inevitable home playoff loss (whether it's in the NFC Championship Game or earlier).  Part of me thinks that a little adversity during the season might actually be good for them, and playing in a more competitive division would certainly help.  But that's really more on the other three NFC North teams than it is on Green Bay.

Minnesota might actually have a slight chance of being disruptive, but the Vikings are more that annoying sleeper team that'll make every game close and randomly beat somebody good than a legitimate contender.  Still, if anybody can crack the NFC playoff puzzle, it'll be them.  It certainly won't be the Bears or Lions!  Chicago will do the same thing it does every year: think they're good while not actually having an offense.  And do we really need to talk about the Lions?  Didn't think so!

NFC South: If you've seen any of those football preview magazines, you know what two teams they're highest on.  Buffalo and Tampa Bay.  The magazines have a lot more faith in the Bucs than I do.  Yes, it seems like Brady being in the Super Bowl is inevitable (and this year is an odd-numbered game...there hasn't been an odd-numbered Super Bowl without him since Super Bowl XLVII...10 years ago!).

While I'm not willing to go there on Tampa Bay, winning the division should be fairly easy, if for no other reason than because they're much better than the other three teams.  New Orleans has a shot to be competitive and may challenge for a wild card, but the Falcons and Panthers are in complete rebuild mode.  Of course, Baker Mayfield could resurrect his career in Charlotte and the Falcons could ride their defense to some close, low-scoring wins.  Ultimately, though, I think they're more likely to contend for the No. 1 pick in the 2023 Draft than a wild card.

NFC West: What's funny about the NFC West is that we spent how long just assuming Seattle would make the playoffs at the very least?  Now, it's the exact opposite.  The Seahawks won't just be at the bottom of the division, they'll be at the bottom of the standings in the entire NFL!  Sure, they'll snag a couple home games because of how difficult the trip up there is, but there's no chance they're making the playoffs.  Not in this division.

Honestly, of the three teams that made the playoffs last season, I'm not sure who's best.  It's probably Arizona, but the Cardinals need to learn how to win a road game if they want to make it three straight Super Bowl home games for the NFC team.  The Rams went all-in for their home Super Bowl win last season, and it worked!  They're not as good as they were last year, but a repeat is definitely possible.  And the 49ers, meanwhile, are the biggest wild card of anybody.  I've got them making the playoffs again simply because they're better than the other teams, but I can see them finishing 7-10 just as easily as I can see them finishing 12-5.

Playoffs: Packers, Buccaneers, Cowboys, Cardinals (division champions), Eagles, Rams, 49ers
Green Bay's schedule is the most favorable, which is why I have the Packers getting the 1-seed at 15-2.  Tampa Bay, Dallas, Arizona and Philadelphia all come in at 13-4, so it comes down to the tiebreakers, which will just determine seeding.  Ultimately, though I see all three division champions winning their wild card game, with that Cowboys-Rams Sunday night game being the best game of the entire playoffs!

So, my NFC Divisional Playoffs are Arizona at Green Bay and Dallas at Tampa Bay.  Going to Lambeau in January proves too much for the Cardinals, especially since the Packers specifically made it a point to address the special teams issues that resulted in their loss to the 49ers in last season's playoffs.  And, call me crazy, but I've got the Cowboys going into Tampa and winning to clinch their first NFC Championship Game berth since 1996.  They have to win with this group eventually, right?

NFC Champion: Dallas
I know, I know.  Come February, I'm gonna look back at this and feel like an idiot!  Or feel like a genius!  There are a lot of things that need to go right for the Dallas Cowboys to finally end their NFC Championship drought.  And there are a lot of good teams in the NFC that they'll need to get by.  I think this may be the year they finally do it.

Super Bowl LVII: Dallas vs. Buffalo
The Bills are a popular preseason Super Bowl pick, so that one shouldn't come as a surprise.  And, yes, I'm probably going out on a little bit of a limb with Dallas.  I just happen to think that the Bills and Cowboys are the most talented teams in each conference.  That doesn't guarantee anything, of course, but it's enough for me to say they're my picks to meet in a Super Bowl for the third time.

Super Bowl LVII Champion: Buffalo Bills
All of those people picking the Bills might be on to something!  They've never won the Super Bowl.  I see that changing this season.  Thirty years after getting embarrassed by the Cowboys at the Rose Bowl, they beat Dallas in Arizona to hoist their first Lombardi Trophy.

My 2022 NFL Preview (AFC)

We've reached the last non-football Sunday until February.  And, I don't know about you, but I'm ready for some football!  Mainly because we enter this season without any real clear favorites...unless you count the Cardinals, who we might as well just give the Lombardi Trophy right now!  Arizona's definitely good, but are they good enough to keep the Super Bowl home team streak alive?

More on the Cardinals and the rest of the NFC tomorrow.  Today I'm focusing on the AFC, which should, once again, give us the usual suspects.  A lot of people are picking the Bills to reach the Super Bowl, and I can see why.  The AFC West, meanwhile, might just be the best division in football now that the Broncos have Russell Wilson.  Could we end up seeing all four teams make the playoffs?

The interesting thing about the AFC, though, is that there are so few "bad" teams, so it's realistic to think pretty much anybody has a shot at the playoffs.  Really, it's only the Jets, Jaguars, Texans and Browns where it'd be a stretch to call them a "playoff contender."  With any of the other 12 teams, it wouldn't be a surprise at all.

AFC East: People were so pissed the Bills lost to the Chiefs in last season's playoffs, they changed the OT rules (which was ridiculous!).  I don't know if that's the reason so many people are so high on Buffalo, but whatever the reason is, that faith is justified.  The Bills already had one of the best offenses, and now they've added Von Miller to the defense.  If they don't win the division, it'll be a surprise.  But, then again...

It took the Patriots all of one season to get back to the playoffs after missing them in 2020.  And another 10-win season looks possible.  Winning only 10 might not be enough to make the playoffs, though, especially since I think Miami is a potential spoiler.  While the Dolphins probably aren't a playoff team right now, they can definitely make life difficult for the good teams, and they may even have a say in who ends up getting the wild cards.  The Jets will not be one of those wild card teams.  They went 3-0 in the preseason!  Good for them!  Too bad preseason games don't actually count for anything!

AFC North: While the AFC West is probably the deepest division in the NFL, the AFC North might be the craziest!  I literally have no idea which of the three teams that aren't the Browns will win the division!  Cincinnati came out of nowhere last year and won the AFC title, Pittsburgh has a new quarterback for the first time in two decades, and Baltimore blew so many close games last season you know they want to prove that was a fluke.

Let's start with the burning question.  Can the Steelers win with Mitchell Trubisky?  The Bears couldn't, but the Bears are also a mess.  For some reason, I think things'll be different in Pittsburgh.  Likewise, Cincinnati will almost certainly come down a peg or two.  The Bengals went from this loveable upstart to the hunted.  We'll see how they handle it.  And the Ravens may be the most talented team in the division...as long as they can stay healthy.  As for the Cleveland Browns, the less said the better.  The DeShaun Watson situation and their role in it is disgusting.  They deserve the 2-15/3-14 record that's in store for them.

AFC South: Once again, the AFC South features two good teams and two not-so-good teams.  The Colts are trying this again, turning to Matt Ryan as their fourth quarterback in four years.  Will that be enough to get them over the hump?  Frankly, I don't think so.  Which, unfortunately, means no playoffs, since it's highly unlikely a wild card comes out of the AFC South and the Titans are just better.

As for Jacksonville and Houston, it's a race to stay out of the cellar.  Although, I think things will be much easier for the Texans now that they've freed themselves from the DeShaun Watson drama.  Problem is, they're still not a very good team.  Slightly better than Jacksonville?  Maybe.  But it's very tight.  And the Jaguars probably do have a little bit more upside than Houston does.  Will it translate to more than five wins?  Probably not.  But they'll at least be more competitive.

AFC West: While I think the 12 games they have to play against each other will prevent the AFC West from getting all four of its teams into the playoffs, I do think they can all finish above .500.  And, frankly, those 12 division games are a toss-up.  I doubt we'll see the Chiefs go 5-1 in the division this year.  Not when they're not as good as they were, and the Chargers, Raiders and Broncos are all better.

Kansas City has become the new New England.  The Chiefs have hosted the AFC Championship Game four years in a row.  I'm not sure they make it five, though.  They're still very good.  They just aren't as good as they've been.  Frankly, they may not even be the best team in the AFC West.  Because I really think that might be the Chargers.  We saw what happened with them in the final game of last season, so you can bet they'll do everything they can to make sure they're not in that position.  The Raiders were a wild card team last year, and they easily could be again.  Or, they could just as easily lose all the one-possession games and finish 7-10.  I'm also curious to see how Russell Wilson does in Denver.  The Broncos will be better.  How much better, though?  And being in the AFC West doesn't help.  Still, they could end up being the best last-place team in football.

Playoffs: Chiefs, Bills, Steelers, Titans (division champions), Chargers, Patriots, Bengals (wild cards)
I think the Chiefs will beat the Bills in the regular season, and that'll make the difference in determining the 1-seed.  Ultimately, I don't think that'll matter though, because I see Kansas City getting upset in the Divisional Playoffs.  My wild card games are Bengals at Bills, Patriots at Steelers and Chargers at Titans, with Buffalo, Pittsburgh and the Chargers winning.

Even though I've got Kansas City winning the AFC West, that matchup between the division rivals in the Divisional Playoffs will be won by the road team.  The Chargers will then head to Buffalo for the AFC Championship Game, since the Bills will easily beat the Steelers.  And, count me among those jumping on the Bills bandwagon.  Because I've got them making the trip to Arizona.

AFC Champion: Buffalo
Simply put, the Bills are the best team in the AFC.  That's why I'm picking them to reach their first Super Bowl in nearly 30 years.  Buffalo has the most talent and is playoff-tested, and they feel like they have something to prove after the way their 2021 season ended.  That could prove to be a dangerous combination for the rest of the AFC.