No More Perfect Number

As we near the end of the group stage in this World Cup, we also near the end of the perfect 32-team field size.  Starting in 2026, the field expands to 48 teams divided into 16 groups of three.  The evenly-divided eight groups of four will be a thing of the past, and so will the simultaneous final group games.  Which usually leads to plenty of crazy swings in the group standings as those games play out.

With the groups of three, simultaneous games won't be possible.  In fact, there won't be any simultaneous games at all moving forward.  All 80 games will be played in their own exclusive window (which is something FIFA wanted and one of the reasons for the expansion).  Which will certainly take away some of that excitement, especially on the final match day.

Some critics have pointed to the non-simultaneous final games as a source for future corruption.  They think there will be more games like France-Denmark in 2018, when they knew they were both likely to advance, so they spent 90 minutes passing the ball back-and-forth around the midfield and neither team even attempted to score.  Some are also quick to point out that they only went to the simultaneous final games because teams knew exactly what they had to do to guarantee a certain matchup in the knockout round (or help someone else advance), so they made sure that would be the result.

While those concerns are understandable, I think they're unfounded.  Simply put, teams won't be able to finagle results that easily.  Not when they're only playing two group games each and group play will only consist of three total games per group!

Think about it.  If you lose your first game, you know you have to win the second one.  Same thing if your first game is a draw.  If you win your first game, your chances of advancing to the knockout round are probably pretty good as long as you don't get blown out, but even then, you'll want to win and guarantee first place, which gives you an "easier" opponent in the round of 32.  So, what are the chances both teams will be content with a tie or try to guarantee a certain result?  Slim to none!

There's another element at play here, too.  The schedule won't really permit it.  We're not talking about two teams playing their last game a day before the other two teams in their group.  We're talking about an odd number of teams, so not everybody's gonna have the same number of games played at the same time!  One team will finish group play days before the other two teams in the group.  So, while it's theoretically possible in the last game, that first team will have no idea how the group standings will play out!

The proposed schedule in the United 2026 bid book has four games being played most days.  That means in Groups A & B, the first team will be done with both its group games by Day 6, but the other two won't finish until Day 10 (which is the day after teams in Groups O & P will play their first game!).  So, that game on Day 6 will be one team's first and the other's second.  Which means it would be nearly impossible for them to conspire for a particular result!

To me, that little scheduling quirk is a bigger potential issue than the unlikely possibility of teams prearranging the result.  Forgetting about the idea of teams being done with group play before others even play their first game for a second, there are some long breaks in there.  Somebody in each group will have more than a week between their two group games.  And the teams that play both of their games early in group play will go a long time before they play again in the round of 32.

This likely isn't a problem for the top teams, who figure to get those week-long breaks before the start of the knockout round (I didn't check out the entire mock schedule, but I'm assuming it's position 1 in each group that plays the first two games).  In fact, they probably want those breaks (especially after this World Cup, when they have a game every four days).  And you know FIFA's OK with it.  Otherwise, they wouldn't have pushed so hard for 16 additional teams and 16 additional games.

If FIFA was concerned about possible result fixing, they wouldn't have settled on groups of three.  But, in order to get the 48 teams and 80 games they wanted, they knew that 16 groups of three was the only way to do it that made sense.  Sure, it meant the loss of the simultaneous final games, but that was a trade-off they were obviously willing to make.

In response to the criticism of the format, somebody from CONCACAF said that the 16 groups of three aren't "set in stone" and that they were "still considering" 12 groups of four.  Sorry, but that doesn't make much sense.  You know how I know that?  Because there will be 16 European teams.  Why 16?  Because UEFA doesn't want two European teams in the same group!  So, 16 groups, 16 European teams.  UEFA wouldn't have signed off on anything else.

So, whether we like it or not, it looks like we're getting the 16 groups of three in 2026.  We already know the expansion to 48 teams is happening, and that is the format that would work best.  Especially with the addition of the round of 32, having 16 groups where the top two advance was the logical way to go.  Which is another reason why concerns about teams manipulating the group standings, while legitimate, are unfounded.  Simply put, two games aren't enough for teams to try that even if they wanted to.

Still, not having simultaneous final group games, while the most logical and sensible thing to do in the new format, will require some getting used to.  And it will definitely leave us missing the days of the 32-team World Cup, which really is the perfect number for a tournament like this.  Three games in group play is just right.  It's enough to know the teams that advanced deserved it, but not too many.  And, of course, the math works out perfectly.  The top two teams in each group move on.  No need to do those best-third-place tiebreakers.

I understand why the World Cup is expanding to 48 teams.  It's something that seemed inevitable eventually.  So there's no point in complaining about it, especially since nobody can change it.  That doesn't mean we can't lament the end of the 32-team era, though.  The final World Cup with the perfect number.

Iconic Futbol Jerseys

On Thanksgiving, as we were watching the Brazil game, I said something about that yellow jersey being iconic and my nephew asked me why, so I explained to him that Brazil's yellow shirt and blue shorts is the world futbol equivalent of Yankees pinstripes or the Montreal Canadiens' red sweater.  When you see that jersey, you know exactly who's playing.  (I'm also convinced that part of the reason Colombia and Ecuador wear yellow at home is so Brazil can't.)

In fact, I'd argue that, along with the New Zealand All Blacks' rugby uniform, the Brazilian soccer kit might be perhaps the most instantly recognizable in world sport.  It has varied slightly over the years, but the only changes you'll see might be the sock color or a different font.  The basic look has always been the same, though.  Yellow shirt, blue shorts, white socks.

Brazil isn't the only country with an instantly recognizable uniform, of course.  There are several nations with iconic looks, as a matter of fact.  They've all changed their road kit over the years, sometimes even changing the color, but their primary uniforms have remained pretty much the same.  And these 10 countries (well, 11 actually), both based on their success and the consistency of their look, have the most iconic uniforms in world soccer/football/futbol.

10 (tie). Paraguay: Paraguay hasn't had anywhere near the same level of success as the other teams on this list, but, whenever they're on the field, there's no mistaking what team it is.  Those vertical red and white stripes date back to the 1920s.  That's why, even though I originally considered not including the Albirroja in the top 10 and making them an honorable mention instead, I just couldn't do it.

10 (tie). Netherlands: The House of Orange-Nassau has been the Dutch royal family for almost 500 years.  That's why all of their national teams wear orange.  And that's why the soccer team is called the "Oranje."  They do lose points, though, because, while the jersey and socks have been consistent, they've gone back and forth between orange, white and blue shorts.

9. France: Same thing for our defending champions, "Les Bleus."  Sometimes it's all blue.  Sometimes it's blue with white shorts and red socks.  And they've currently got gold numbers (which is probably only a temporary thing while they're the current World Cup champions).  Still, there's only one team that wears that dark blue shirt, regardless of the shorts/socks paired with it.

8. Croatia: Just like how Paraguay makes the list because of their distinctive vertical red stripes, Croatia's on it because of their red-and-white checkerboard design.  The checkerboard is on the Croatian flag, so it makes sense that they'd also use it as the signature look for the national team.  They incorporate it on their road uniforms, too, but that doesn't stand out nearly as much as the red and white.

7. Mexico: "El Tri" have had the same look since the 50s.  Green shirts, white shorts, red socks.  With very little variation since they settled on the colors of the Mexican flag as their primary uniform.  They've had all kinds of different looks for their road kits, but there's only one look you'll see the home team sporting at Azteca.

6. Spain: When Spain played the Netherlands in the 2010 final, they actually wore blue since they were the "road" team and red and orange are too close.  After they won, they switched to red for the trophy presentation.  Makes sense for a team known as "La Roja."  They're wearing all red in this picture (which I think is from the Costa Rica game), but the traditional look features blue shorts and socks with the red shirts.

5. Uruguay: All of the top five have one thing in common.  They've all won multiple World Cups.  Which is certainly part of the reason their looks are so iconic.  The top five starts with Uruguay, which has worn a sky blue shirt with black shorts and black socks for more than a century.  Uruguay's uniform is the same today as it was when the country won the first World Cup in 1930.

4. Germany: There's been some variation on the jersey, which has occasionally had some degree of decoration, but it's consistently been white.  And when you see a white jersey and black shorts on a soccer field, there's only one team it can be.  In a way, they're like the Dallas Cowboys, who end up wearing white most of the time because they wear white at home and their opponents usually wear their color at home.  Same with Germany.  They have road uniforms.  We just rarely see them.

3. Italy: They may not be in Qatar, but that doesn't make Italy's look any less iconic.  "Gli Azzuri," after all, means "The Blues" in Italian!  They got that name way back in 1911, when the blue jersey debuted.  It's almost always been paired with white shorts and blue socks since then.  They've also been pretty consistent with a reverse version (white over blue) for road games.

2. Argentina: If it wasn't already obvious, the top two are the South American rivals.  Maradona, Messi and all those who've come before (and will come after) have worn those iconic sky blue and white stripes, which has been the look for "La Albiceleste" since 1908.  I'm not sure if there's any team, professional or national, that's worn the same uniform as long.  The white and sky blue stripes have become so identified with Argentina that it has spread to Argentine national teams in other sports, much like Notre Dame's gold helmets and North Carolina's argyle pattern.

1. Brazil: What's crazy about Brazil's iconic look is that it's relatively new in comparison to some of the others.  They only started wearing the yellow jerseys with blue shorts in 1954.  But those uniforms have become so identified with Brazil that it's impossible to imagine them wearing anything else.  Of course, the fact that there have been so many legendary Brazilian players, from Pele to Neymar and everyone in between, and they've all sported basically the same look has only helped make them so iconic.  Not just the most iconic look in world soccer.  One of the most iconic in the world, period!

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 12)

If the last two weeks have proven anything, it's that I have no idea what the hell I'm doing when it comes to making NFL picks!  Either that or it's just another example of the league's parity.  Either way, it hasn't been the best two weeks for me.  (It also might be a sign that I need to give up on the Rams and Steelers and accept the fact that the 49ers are actually good.)

As we hit Thanksgiving, we also have an extraordinary situation where all eight teams in the Eastern divisions are above .500.  Every in the AFC East, in fact, is at least two games above .500!  I doubt it'll continue, though.  Thanks to the ridiculous 18-week schedule, everybody still has either six or seven games left (the super-late byes are also incredibly annoying).  That's a lot of time!

Bills (7-3) at Lions (4-6): Buffalo-The Bills, who are starting to become as regular a part of Thanksgiving as the Lions and Cowboys, return to Detroit for the second time in five days.  The home team, meanwhile, enters their annual Thanksgiving tilt on a three-game winning streak, including Sunday's romp over the Giants at Met Life.  It's nice to see the Lions are actually playing well for their annual national showcase.  That doesn't mean they'll beat the Bills, though.

Giants (7-3) at Cowboys (7-3): Dallas-Well, the Cowboys sure made a statement against Minnesota, didn't they?  That wasn't just impressive, it was such a dominant performance that CBS actually switched off what was supposed to be the national game!  Needless to say, that's a great way to enter their Thanksgiving contest, especially when compared to the Giants' performance on Sunday.  That game was essentially a must-win for the Giants.  Now they need to find a way to win in Dallas to avoid falling effectively two games behind the Cowboys, who already beat them on a Monday night in Week 3.

Patriots (6-4) at Vikings (8-2): Minnesota-Having the short week after that nightmare against Dallas is either a really good thing or a really bad thing for the Vikings.  And we're still not sure whether it was just a bad day at the office or a sign that their 8-2 record is really a mirage (they have a -2 scoring differential for the season, but that's based mainly on the Cowboys game).  We'll get a chance to find out against a Patriots team that needed a punt return touchdown on literally the last play of the game to beat the Jets on Sunday.

Buccaneers (5-5) at Browns (3-7): Tampa Bay-One more week until serial sexual harasser Deshaun Watson is allowed to return to the Browns lineup!  Yes, it's beyond ridiculous that I just typed that sentence.  Fortunately, Cleveland's remaining games will be irrelevant.  That'll be especially true after Brady drops them to 3-8.  And, considering how bad the entire NFC South was a few weeks ago, seeing the Bucs as a 6-5 division leader will be refreshing.

Bengals (6-4) at Titans (7-3): Tennessee-For the first time in a while, Cincinnati is sitting in playoff position.  It won't be easy for the Bengals to hold on to that wild card, though, with division leaders Tennessee and Kansas City (aka two of the teams they beat in the playoffs last season) as their next two opponents.  So, that 6-4 could easily become 6-6.  Because I don't see them beating Mike Vrabel's unheralded (but very good) Titans.

Texans (1-8-1) at Dolphins (7-3): Miami-Since we saw the Dolphins last, their brethren from 50 years ago popped the champagne and they've gotten some company at the top of the crowded AFC playoff picture.  Miami is still holding down the No. 2 seed, but barely, and has three straight road games coming up (including two straight on the West Coast).  So, needless to say, losing at home to the worst team in the league would be bad.

Bears (3-8) at Jets (6-4): Jets-Man, the Jets just cannot beat the Patriots!  Just when you think they've run out of ways to lose to New England, they come up with something new!  Anyway, the good news is they don't play the Patriots again this season.  The even better news is that their opponent this week is the Bears.  Even with their quarterback dysfunction, the Jets are better than Chicago.  More importantly, with trips to Minnesota and Buffalo coming up and four of their last six on the road, they need to beat the Bears if they have any hope at continuing the season into the third week of January.

Falcons (5-6) at Commanders (6-5): Washington-Don't look now, but Washington is on a roll.  And the Commanders will be a team nobody wants to face in December.  The Falcons, meanwhile, still have a shot in the NFC South, and they're just a game-and-a-half out of a wild card spot.  So, this is a big game for both teams, especially since the winner will have the tiebreaker.  I like the way the Commanders are playing a little bit more, and the game is in DC, so they're the pick.

Broncos (3-7) at Panthers (3-8): Carolina-Neither one of these teams is good.  So, it's really just a matter of which one will be less bad that given week.  And, strangely, I think Carolina is the less bad team right now.  The Broncos have had issues scoring all season.  It's not like the Panthers have been lighting up the scoreboard, either (they were held to a field goal last week in Baltimore).  But they play better at home, which is where this game will be played.

Ravens (7-3) at Jaguars (3-7): Baltimore-Last season, it was right around this time when the Ravens began their fall from the division lead to out of the playoffs entirely.  Fortunately, they've got a few things going for them this year.  First, their defense is playing much better.  Second, the AFC North isn't nearly as strong.  Third, their stretch run is a lot more manageable this season.  They do have a lot of division games left, though, and you never know how those are gonna go.  So they really need to take care of business in Jacksonville.

Chargers (5-5) at Cardinals (4-7): Chargers-It's the same story with both of these teams.  You never know which version is gonna show up.  Will we get the Chargers that played most of the game against Kansas City or the ones that gave Mahomes and Kelce enough time at the end to win it?  And will it be the Cardinals who had that comeback against the Raiders or the Cardinals who clearly forgot their game on Monday was in Mexico City, not Glendale?  The Chargers are slightly more consistent, so they get the nod here.

Raiders (3-7) at Seahawks (6-4): Seattle-When the Seahawks left for Munich, they had a game-and-a-half division lead.  They now find themselves tied with San Francisco in the division and barely hanging on to a wild card (they lead the Commanders, who haven't had their bye yet, by a half-game).  So, beating an inconsistent Raiders team is imperative if they want to remain in the playoff hunt as the calendar flips to December.

Rams (3-7) at Chiefs (8-2): Kansas City-This season is not going as planned for the defending champs.  The Rams have lost four straight to go from 3-3 to 3-7, and things don't get any easier this week with a visit to Kansas City.  It sounds weird to say, but the Chiefs have quietly made their way to the top of the AFC.  They've been winning close games, too, and winning them in different ways.  Are they peaking too early?  Perhaps.  But they'll enter December 9-2 regardless.

Saints (4-7) at 49ers (6-4): San Francisco-On Monday night, as the 49ers were putting the finishing touches on their win over the Cardinals in Mexico City, Joe Buck called them Super Bowl contenders.  Sorry, Joe, but that's a bit of a stretch!  They are very good, though.  And with their schedule the rest of the way, winning the NFC West is an entirely realistic thought.  They'll start a three-game homestand by beating New Orleans.

Packers (4-7) at Eagles (9-1): Philadelphia-After losing for the first time this season, Philadelphia's follow-up wasn't exactly impressive.  The Eagles struggled to move the ball all day against the Colts.  But...they managed to get a touchdown at the end, which was enough for the win.  Now they get the Packers, who essentially need to win out to have any shot.  That won't happen.

Steelers (3-7) at Colts (4-6-1): Pittsburgh-When they set this as the Monday night game to conclude Thanksgiving weekend, it looked like a good one on paper between two teams they expected to be playoff contenders.  Instead, they're both struggling (although, the Colts have been better in their two games under Jeff Saturday).  So it's not as glamorous a matchup as they thought!  Call me crazy, but after last week, I can see the Steelers winning this one.

Last Week: 7-7
Overall: 91-72-1

The World Cup Is Here

At long last, the 2022 World Cup has begun.  There was plenty of criticism directed at Qatar in the lead-up, from the timing to the human rights record to the decision not to sell alcohol to the pressure on players to protest.  Some of it was warranted.  Some not.  But I'm in agreement with those who've spoken out about the fact that they had no problem with FIFA letting Qatar buy the World Cup 12 years ago, so why are these suddenly problems now?  And with the players, who've said that they're in Qatar to do a job...and that's to play soccer and try to win a world championship.

Fortunately, all of that is over and the tournament is here.  Was that Opening Ceremony unnecessarily over the top?  Absolutely!  But it was also kinda cool!  And, if the first game is any indication, playing the World Cup in the middle of the club season, when the players are already in midseason form, may not necessarily be a bad thing.

What should we expect over the next four weeks in Qatar, though?  And who'll end up lifting the trophy at the end?  Will Messi finally win his first World Cup?  Will Neymar?  Can France repeat?  There are plenty of countries who realistically feel they can win, but only will.

Group A: Netherlands, Ecuador
Qatar has already made World Cup history as the first host country to lose its opening game.  Which, unfortunately, means the Qataris will likely join South Africa in 2010 as the only hosts not to advance out of the group phase.  They needed to beat Ecuador to have any chance of getting out of the group.  Seeing as that didn't happen, I expect Ecuador to join the Netherlands as the second team to come out of the group (which I already thought before they beat Qatar).  If they play like they did in the opening game, they could even beat the Dutch.

Group B: England, United States
The opening game against Wales might be the biggest game of the tournament for the United States.  You can't assume a result against England, and you don't want to be chasing points against Iran in the last game of group play.  So, I don't think it's hyperbole to call the Wales game a must-win.  If the U.S. beats Wales, I see them joining England in the round of 16.  If they don't, getting out of this very difficult group will be hard.  Not impossible, but harder than it needs to be.

Group C: Argentina, Mexico
Argentina is one of the pre-tournament favorites after finally winning their first major trophy of the Messi Era at last year's Copa America.  I don't think they're as good as the 2014 squad that lost to Germany in the final at the Maracana, but their status as one of the favorites is well-deserved.  For the second spot, I give Mexico the slight edge over Poland.  El Tri always find a way to reach the round of 16.

Group D: France, Denmark
Thankfully, France and Denmark play in the second game, not the last game, so we won't have a repeat of them passing the ball around the midfield for 90 minutes with neither trying to score.  Denmark, of course, had that great semifinal run at the Euro last year, so it wouldn't completely shock me if they beat the French and won the group.  France does have history working against them, too.  The last three defending champs failed to get out of the group phase.  I can't, in good conscience, say that'll happen again this year.  Even without Benzema, France is the best team in this group.

Group E: Germany, Spain
I've gone on and on about the FIFA rankings before, so I'm not gonna get into how ridiculous it is that Germany and Spain ended up in the same group.  I just feel bad for Japan and Costa Rica.  Especially since the Germans are on a mission to redeem themselves after finishing last in their group in 2018.  Spain did the same thing as defending champs in 2014.  The winner of the Spain-Germany game tops the group.  I think that'll be the Germans.

Group F: Croatia, Belgium
As you know, I don't think Belgium is nearly as good as their ranking implies.  Which is one of the biggest flaws of the FIFA rankings.  But I promised I'm not gonna get into that, so I won't.  Croatia made the final four years ago in Russia, which is a big challenge to live up to.  They do have Luka Modric, though, so, at the very least, they should get out of the group.  The team I'm interested to see is Canada.  They won't advance, but how will they perform in their first World Cup since 1986 as they get ready to co-host in 2026?

Group G: Brazil, Cameroon
Brazil is a popular pick to win its sixth World Cup.  And it's easy to see why.  They're the most complete team in the tournament and will be very hard to beat.  The Brazilians have never failed to advance out of the group, so the competition really comes down to one spot.  Which, again, could be decided in the first game when Switzerland plays Cameroon on Thanksgiving.  Call me crazy, but I see Cameroon winning that one and keeping up the tradition of at least one African nation in the round of 16.

Group H: Portugal, Ghana
This is by far the weakest of the eight groups.  Pretty Boy and Co. will likely win it by default, even though I'm not sure they would even advance if they were in another group.  The second spot is wide open, though.  And the fact that Uruguay and Ghana are in the same group makes me think back to their quarterfinal in 2010 and Suarez's brilliant intentional hand ball that saved the game for Uruguay.  Twelve years later, I think Ghana gets its revenge and beats Uruguay to earn a place opposite Brazil in the round of 16.

Round of 16: Netherlands vs. United States, Argentina vs. Denmark, Germany vs. Belgium, Brazil vs. Ghana, England vs. Ecuador, France vs. Mexico, Croatia vs. Spain, Portugal vs. Cameroon
Winning Group A vs. not winning Group A will be such a major difference.  Because second place likely faces the Dutch.  First place gets a weak second-place team and almost guaranteed quarterfinal berth.  Which isn't to say the U.S. can't beat the Dutch.  In fact, I think they make the quarterfinals regardless of opponent.  The other teams I have advancing are Argentina, Germany, Brazil, England, France, Croatia and Portugal.

Quarterfinals: United States vs. Argentina, Germany vs. Brazil, England vs. France, Croatia vs. Portugal
It's in the quarterfinals where I see a lot of stories ending.  Even if the U.S. beats the Netherlands, they're not beating Messi.  France's title defense will also come to an end against England, which, don't forget, made the final of the Euro last year.  I've also got Brazil winning that battle of heavyweights, while Portugal keeps taking advantage of a weak draw to get to the semifinals (which is exactly how they won Euro 2016, BTW).

Semifinals: Argentina vs. Brazil, England vs. Portugal
For some reason, it took them much longer than it should have to cancel that suspended Argentina-Brazil game from South American qualifying that didn't matter for either one of them.  Obviously, if they were to play in a World Cup semifinal, it would be a much different situation.  But the intensity would be the same.  This time, the Selecao get their revenge for Copa America, beat their rivals, and keep Messi from winning the World Cup.  Pretty Boy also sees his dream of winning the World Cup end, as England, after years of underachieving, finally gets back to its first World Cup final since 1966.

Final: Brazil vs. England
Both Brazil and England lost in the final of their continental championship last summer.  So they both come into the World Cup realistically thinking they can win the whole thing.  As you can tell by this pick, I think the same thing.  Either Neymar cements his place among the other Brazilian legends or Harry Kane leads a new generation of English stars to their crowning moment.  It'll be Neymar.  This will be his moment.  Sure, he led Brazil to that home Olympic gold at Maracana six years ago.  But this is the World Cup.  This trumps Olympic gold.

So, there you have it.  Count me among the many who thinks Brazil is the tournament favorite.  They've had a couple disappointing runs of late.  Since winning the 2002 World Cup, they've had three quarterfinal losses and that embarrassing performance against Germany in the 2014 semifinals.  Twenty years later, as the World Cup returns to Asia for the first time since then, Brazil returns to the top step and hoists the trophy for a record sixth time.

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 11)

If the season ended today, all four AFC East teams would be in the playoffs.  And the Commanders are 5-5, so all eight teams in the two East divisions are .500 or better.  That stat is even crazier now that we're starting to pay attention to the playoff race.  Will it stay that way?  Probably not.  Especially since the division schedules were backloaded, but, as we approach Thanksgiving, I think we know which divisions are the two best in football.

Thursday Night: Green Bay (Loss)

Bears (3-7) at Falcons (4-6): Atlanta-Atlanta's gonna stick around in the playoff race all season, huh?  The Falcons losing last Thursday night in Carolina wasn't that big of a surprise, seeing as they struggled to beat the Panthers just 10 days earlier.  Now they get a Bears team which, outside of that one random game against the Patriots, has shown no ability to stop anybody.  They can put up points, but typically end up losing 35-32.

Browns (3-6) vs Bills (6-3): Buffalo-After losing the game of the year, the Bills went from first to sixth in the AFC!  How insane is that!?  The Bills certainly aren't the sixth-best team in the AFC!  And now they can't even play at home because of the snowstorm in Buffalo.  Instead, they'll play the first of consecutive games in Detroit.  They'll be right back there on Thursday to play the Lions.  Can they win at Ford Field twice in a week to get back on track?

Eagles (8-1) at Colts (4-5-1): Philadelphia-The '72 Dolphins popped the champagne on Monday night when the Eagles fell to the Commanders.  Critics were all over Philadelphia after every game with their arguments why the Eagles aren't that good.  Well, they got their wish against Washington.  The Eagles aren't undefeated anymore.  They'll just have to settle for being 9-1 on Thanksgiving.

Rams (3-6) at Saints (3-7): Rams-Needless to say, this isn't how the Rams saw their Super Bowl defense going.  I forget how long it is, but I saw a stat the other day saying that they have the worst record through nine games for the defending champion in quite a while.  Things aren't exactly going much better in New Orleans, where the Saints' new head coach seems to be in a bit over his head.  Can a win here kick the Rams into high gear heading into the season's final month?

Lions (3-6) at Giants (7-2): Giants-One more win is all the Giants need to snap their streak 10-loss seasons.  It's also crazy to think that with the 17-game schedule, you need to win eight games to avoid double-digit losses.  Anyway, they'll beat the Lions this week to take care of that.  Which is good.  Since their remaining schedule is brutal!  Five division games and Minnesota left.  Can they win one or two of those to hang on to their wild card spot?

Panthers (3-7) at Ravens (6-3): Baltimore-Last season, Baltimore was in first place at Thanksgiving only to fade badly in December and miss the playoffs entirely.  They're hoping history won't repeat itself this year.  Of course, the difference this season is that they'll have a much bigger division lead.  The Ravens will hit the stretch run with a 7-3 record.

Commanders (5-5) at Texans (1-7-1): Washington-Count Washington out at your own risk.  On Monday night, the Commanders gave notice that they'll be a team nobody wants to play down the stretch.  Which is bad news for the rest of the NFC East!  They'll also join the Patriots as last-place teams with a winning record (and potentially a wild card position) after they knock off the team with the worst record in the league.

Raiders (2-7) at Broncos (3-6): Denver-Both of these teams came into the season with high expectations that they certainly haven't lived up to.  The Raiders were a playoff team last season, but even Josh McDaniels has said are rebuilding.  The Broncos, meanwhile, thought Russell Wilson was the answer, yet have had little to no offense in most of their games.  So, which one will be less bad this week?  The game's in Denver, so I'll go with the Broncos.

Cowboys (6-3) at Vikings (8-1): Minnesota-Another matchup where both teams will have the quick turnaround for Thanksgiving games.  Call me crazy, but I think the Minnesota Vikings might just be the best team in the NFL.  And, now that the Eagles have a loss, home field advantage is suddenly in play.  Home.  Which is exactly where they play their next three and five of their next six.  They'll win the NFC North easily.  This long stretch of home games will likely determine whether they also get the bye or not.

Bengals (5-4) at Steelers (3-6): Pittsburgh-When the Steelers and Bengals met in Cincinnati in Week 1, Pittsburgh won in overtime.  Ten weeks later, that's still their only victory over an AFC team all season.  Yet, if they beat the Bengals again, they'll only be a game behind them in the division and enter the home stretch with hope.  Can they make the playoffs?  Absolutely not!  But they'll go a long way towards making sure Cincinnati doesn't make it either.

Chiefs (7-2) at Chargers (5-4): Kansas City-They flexed this one into Sunday night, giving the Chargers back-to-back Sunday night games.  For some reason, they struggle in primetime games, though.  They needed OT to beat Denver on a Monday night, lost last week, and lost to the Chiefs on a Thursday night in Week 2.  The Chiefs who, don't look now, are suddenly the 1-seed in the AFC.  A win here to sweep the season series with the Chargers would essentially wrap up another division title for Kansas City.

49ers (5-4) vs Cardinals (4-6): Arizona-England, Germany, now Mexico to finish off this year's slate of international games.  And the matchup at Azteca takes us back to the NFL's first foray into Mexico City, with the 49ers meeting the Cardinals.  That was a big win for Arizona last week to stay relevant in the playoff race.  San Francisco, meanwhile, currently holds the 7-seed in the NFC.  The Cardinals have had the edge in this series in recent years.  So, judging by how NFC West division games usually follow that script, they're the pick.

*GREY CUP* Argonauts vs Blue Bombers: Winnipeg-From Mexico to Canada, as I give you my traditional bonus pick with the Grey Cup.  The Winnipeg Blue Bombers, who hadn't won the Grey Cup since 1990 before winning in 2019 are now looking for their third straight.  They can become the first team to do that since Edmonton won five in a row from 1978-82.  As much as I liked what I saw from Toronto last week in the East final, I'm not sure they're stopping that Winnipeg juggernaut.

Last Week: 6-8
This Week: 0-1
Overall: 84-66-1 

Awards Season: The MVPs

"But Ohtani also pitches!"  That's the whiny refrain we've heard for months from the morons who insist Aaron Judge shouldn't be AL MVP simply because Ohtani's a unicorn who can do something no one else in the Majors can.  I suppose we should, as long as he's healthy, just automatically anoint him as AL MVP every year until the end of his career then!  Which is, of course, ridiculous.  Kinda like how using the fact that Ohtani also pitches as your only argument for why he should be MVP is also ridiculous.

None of this is meant to downplay Shohei Ohtani's brilliance in any way.  He finished fourth in Cy Young voting and most likely second in MVP voting.  And it's true that his pitching stats this season were better than they were last year.  But the difference between last season, when he was the unanimous MVP, and this season is that this year he wasn't the story.  Someone else was.

I watched Aaron Judge all season, so I'll admit to being a bit biased.  But watching him all season let me see the things that went beyond his otherworldly numbers.  Setting the AL record for home runs, leading the Majors in every offensive category except batting average, and nearly winning the triple crown should be more than enough.  And the fact that there's even a conversation is a testament to Ohtani.  But, frankly, the race shouldn't be particularly close.

Judge's stats speak for themselves.  They aren't what made him this season's AL MVP, though.  They were just part of the equation.  He's a Gold Glove-caliber right fielder, but spent much of the season playing center so that the Yankees could put a better lineup on the field.  He played every day.  Yes, he was chasing the home run record.  But it was also because no one else on the team could hit!  Judge literally carried the team on his back for six weeks...and they ended up winning 99 games and a division title!  All of this while taking a bet on himself after turning down an extension in Spring Training.

Fortunately, this ridiculous "debate" is coming to an end.  Judge will be AL MVP, Ohtani will finish second, and Yordan Alvarez will finish third.  Although, if I had a vote, I would've spent a long time considering putting Alvarez second and Ohtani third.  Because Alvarez's numbers would be MVP-caliber if not for Judge, and he played for a Houston team that won 106 games and the World Series.

Cleveland's Jose Ramirez probably finished fourth.  And with good reason.  I think sometimes people forget how good Jose Ramirez is, but he's one of the best all-around players in the American League.  This season, he also provided a valuable veteran presence for a very young Guardians team.

Who else fills out the 10-man ballot?  Well, I've got another Guardian in Andres Gimenez, and, even though Boston had a terrible year, Rafael Devers sure didn't!  Xander Bogaerts didn't either, even if his numbers weren't Devers-like.  I'm even giving Julio Rodriguez some rookie love.  Meanwhile, you had Bo Bichette leading the AL in hits while playing 159 games virtually all over the field for Toronto.  Kyle Tucker also had a really good year in Houston.  So did Jose Altuve.  And Justin Verlander.

So, it's pretty obvious who I've got No. 1.  And, as tempting as it was to make Alvarez No. 2, I couldn't do it.  So he goes behind Ohtani.  As for the rest of my top 10, here it is: 4. Ramirez, 5. Devers, 6. Bichette, 7. Rodriguez, 8. Gimenez, 9. Tucker, 10. Bogaerts.

Over in the National League, it's nowhere near as clear-cut.  But there's still a clear favorite.  Paul Goldschmidt, amazingly, has never won an MVP before, although he has finished second twice and third once.  This season should be the one when he finally takes home the hardware.

It could even be a Cardinals 1-2 with Goldschmidt and Nolan Arenado.  With those two and a rejuvenated Albert Pujols in the middle of the lineup, is it a surprise that St. Louis won the division?  The numbers are remarkably similar, too.  Goldschmidt had a much higher average, but in everything else they were virtually even (home runs: Goldschmidt 35, Arenado 30; RBIs: Goldschmidt 115, Arenado 103; doubles: Arenado 42, Goldschmidt 41).  What's crazy is that Arenado finished second on the team in every category except doubles.  Which shows how good Goldschmidt's numbers were.

You want teammates with virtually identical numbers?  May I present the Dodgers' Freddie Freeman and Trea Turner?  (Even their jersey numbers are consecutive!)  They both hit 21 homers and had 100 RBIs, and Freeman had 199 hits to Turner's 194.  Freeman did have the advantage in virtually everything else, though, (except for stolen bases) so I've gotta put him higher on the final list.

Don't worry, I didn't forget about Manny Machado, who'll have his second top three finish in three years.  Like fellow finalists Goldschmidt and Arenado, he's never been an MVP, either.  So, at least that little tidbit will no longer be true for one of them.  While I still think it'll be Goldschmidt (who'd get my vote), an argument could easily be made for Machado.  A .298 average, 172 hits, 32 homers, 37 doubles, 102 RBIs.

The National League top three is very solid.  But so are the other positions lower on the MVP ballot, which should include some teammates on teams other than the Cardinals and Dodgers.  Teams like the two 100-win clubs in the NL East.

From the Mets, you've got Pete Alonso and Jeff McNeil.  Alonso had a league-leading 131 RBIs and finished second with 40 homers.  McNeil, meanwhile, had an MLB-best .326 batting average, and he only struck out 61 times in 533 at-bats!  The Braves, meanwhile, had Austin Riley and Dansby Swanson.  Riley came into his own during the 2021 World Series and followed it up with a 38-home run season in 2022.  Swanson played every game (which nobody does anymore, and is even more important when you consider the number of injuries the Braves had, especially in the infield) and was just as productive offensively as Riley.  (You could even make an argument for Matt Olson to be a third Brave in the top 10.)
 
And, even though his average was only .218, you know how the sabermetric crowd looks beyond batting average, so Kyle Schwarber should definitely be in the discussion.  He's not a leadoff hitter, but hit leadoff for the Phillies most of the season and led the NL with 46 home runs.  Schwarber even stole 10 bases!  I'm also in the camp that Sandy Alcantara should draw some MVP consideration after unanimously winning the Cy Young.

Still, everybody's numbers pale in comparison to what Goldschmidt did this season.  Goldschmidt doesn't compare to Judge, but he doesn't need to.  And he towers over the rest of the National League.  Rounding out the ballot, I've got: 2. Machado, 3. Arenado, 4. Alonso, 5. Freeman, 6. Riley, 7. Turner, 8. Alcantara, 9. McNeil, 10. Swanson.

Awards Season: The Cy Youngs

All Justin Verlander did in 2022 was come back from Tommy John surgery...at age 39...having thrown a grand total of six innings in the past two years...and have arguably the best season of his Hall of Fame career.  I'd even venture to say it was better than his 2011 season, when he won both the Cy Young and MVP!  Which is why there's no reason to even debate it.  Verlander will win his third career Cy Young this season, and his second since joining the Astros.

I'd actually argue that it could've been an Astros 1-2.  We know that it wasn't since Framber Valdez isn't a finalist.  But maybe he should've been.  After all, Valdez led the AL in innings pitched (201.1) and complete games (3), was second in wins (17), and struck out 194.

Instead, the other two finalists are Dylan Cease of the White Sox and Alek Manoah of the Blue Jays.  I'd say Cease has the better case and probably finished second behind Verlander.  He allowed one run or fewer 23 times and finished with an ERA of 2.20.  Cease was also second in the AL with 227 strikeouts and held opponents to a .190 batting average.  The White Sox might've underachieved this season, but it wasn't Cease's fault.

Manoah, meanwhile, emerged as the Blue Jays' ace.  His numbers are actually comparable to Cease's.  A 16-7 record and 2.24 ERA with 180 strikeouts in 196.2 innings.  And Manhoah's WHIP was below 1.00.  I actually wouldn't be surprised if he got some MVP votes, too.  Because, with all the injuries on Toronto's pitching staff, Manoah proved to be a consistent presence on the mound who helped them secure home field advantage in the Wild Card Series.

Cleveland won the AL Central in large part because of its excellent starting rotation.  But Guardians closer Emmanuel Clase had just as big a role in their success.  When he came in from the bullpen, it was essentially game over.  He pitched in nearly half of the Guardians' games and saved 42 of them.

It wouldn't surprise me if Shohei Ohtani got Cy Young votes.  He's not gonna join Verlander and Clayton Kershaw in the MVP/Cy Young club this season, but you could definitely make an argument for him to receive fourth- or fifth-place Cy Young votes.  He was even better on the mound this season, and he threw enough innings to qualify for the ERA title.  Ohtani was fourth in ERA and third in strikeouts.  We'll talk about him some more tomorrow.

For Cy Young, we go five deep, and I think it's pretty obvious who should win it.  I'd actually be surprised if it isn't unanimous for Verlander.  The rest of my top five is Cease, Valdez, Manoah and Clase.  But, if you wanted to swap Clase for Ohtani, that would be totally fine with me.

Over in the National League, it's a little more wide open.  But I think there's still a clear favorite.  Playing in Miami, he wasn't as heralded as he maybe should've been, but Sandy Alcantara was, in my opinion, the best pitcher in the National League this season by a wide margin.  And I would love to see him be rewarded with the Cy Young.

Yes, I realize it sounds like I'm doing a complete 180 here after I was so vehemently opposed to Felix Rodriguez winning over David Price in 2010 and Jacob deGrom over Max Scherzer in 2018.  But the difference is that in those two years, it was actually neck-and-neck, so the fact that one pitched in irrelevant games for a bad team and the other pitched in important games for a contender mattered.  This year, though, it's not that close.  Alcantara was far and away the best pitcher in the National League this season.

The Dodgers won 111 games, so there were plenty of wins available for their pitchers to get.  Julio Urias had 17 of them and ended up as the ace of a rotation that also included Clayton Kershaw and Walker Buehler.  But Kershaw and Buehler both missed significant time in the second half due to injuries.  All Urias did in their absence was go 11-2 with a 1.26 ERA over his last 14 starts.  Oh yeah, and he led the National League in ERA, too.

Atlanta also had an abundance of starting pitching, headlined by Max Fried.  He was a big part of the Braves' late-season run to the division title and ended up third in NL with a 2.48 ERA.  Still, I'd place Fried far behind both Alcantara and Urias in the voting.  I'm not even sure I'd place him in the top three.

Who would I put in the top three ahead of him?  Well, Mets closer Edwin Diaz for one.  Yeah, they had Scherzer and deGrom, but it was the trumpets blaring when the bullpen door swung open after the eighth inning that really got Mets fans fired up.  They made it a priority to re-sign Diaz last offseason, and you can understand why.  He was excellent this season!  Diaz had 118 strikeouts in 62 innings!  That's insane!

Last year's surprise NL Cy Young winner was the Brewers' Corbin Burnes.  He followed it up by striking out 243 in 202 innings while going 12-8 with a 2.94 ERA this season.  Carlos Rodon was 14-8 with 237 strikeouts for the Giants, while Tony Gonsolin's 16-1 record and 2.14 ERA can't be ignored (even if he did only throw 130.1 innings).  Tyler Anderson makes it three Dodgers worthy of being in the discussion.

While I'm curious to see how the down-ballot voting ended up, 1 and 2 are pretty clear to me.  Alcantara is the winner, with Urias the runner-up.  As for the rest of my hypothetical NL Cy Young ballot, it's Diaz 3, Burnes 4, Fried 5.

Awards Season: The Managers

As much as some Phillies fans might be upset that Rob Thomson isn't a finalist, I think they nailed it with the top three in both Manager of the Year races this season.  Thomson did a great job guiding the Phillies from a sub-.500 afterthought to a playoff team and eventual pennant-winner.  But was it better than the job done by Buck Showalter, Brian Snitker or Dave Roberts?  No.

All three National League finalists led their team to 100 victories, and each of them did it in a very different way.  The Dodgers had a historic regular season.  The Braves stumbled out of the gate, only to catch fire in May and pass the Mets for the NL East title.  And the Mets proved that the right manager can make all the difference.

Let's start there.  Buck Showalter has developed a reputation for turning teams around.  First it was the Yankees, setting them up for the Joe Torre dynasty, then the expansion Diamondbacks, who won the division their second year, then the Rangers, then the Orioles.  The Mets took a big chance on him.  Not everybody was sure an older guy who isn't analytically-minded would be the right fit.  Well, those critics were certainly proven wrong!  Buck was as perfect a fit for the Mets as Dusty Baker was for the Astros.

Now let's talk about Brian Snitker of the Braves.  Atlanta was 10 1/2 games back at the beginning of June.  From that point forward, they went 78-34...while making do without several of their starters from last season's World Series championship team.  Yet they still caught and surpassed the Mets, with their significantly higher payroll.

Then there's Dave Roberts and the Dodgers.  Yes, they fizzled out in the Division Series.  Manager of the Year is a regular season award, though, and the Dodgers had a historic regular season.  They won 111 games!  That's the fourth-most for a single-season in history!  There were a ton of injuries to both the pitching staff and lineup, yet they just kept winning.  They were supposed to be good, of course, but not this good!

Roberts and Snitker have both won this award before.  Roberts in 2016 and Snitker in 2018.  Showalter, meanwhile, can make all sorts of history.  He'd tie a record with his fourth Manager of the Year...with his fourth different team!  He's been the AL Manager of the Year three times, but this would be his first in the NL.  He'd also become the first Mets manager ever to win it, which is kind of hard to believe if you think about it!

That little tidbit will no longer be true come Tuesday evening.  Because I've got Buck Showalter winning that fourth Manager of the Year (and first in the NL).  I'll put Snitker at 2 because of that run the Braves made to win the division, while I can't ignore the Dodgers' 111-51 record, which is why he goes in the No. 3 spot.

In the American League, a very valid argument can be made for all three finalists.  Cleveland won the division with the youngest team in the Majors.  Seattle ended the longest playoff drought in North American professional sports.  And the Orioles!  The Orioles came out of nowhere to finish 83-79, one year after going 52-110!

There isn't even a fourth manager worthy of being in the discussion with those three!  Sure, Dusty Baker led the Astros to 106 wins and, eventually, the World Series title.  But Houston was supposed to be good and played 57 games against the Angels, A's and Rangers!  The Angels sucked significantly less after Phil Nevin replaced Joe Maddon as manager, but they were still out of contention pretty much all season.  So, I wouldn't be surprised if the top three were all named on all 30 ballots.

Francona's been in Cleveland 10 years (crazy right?) and already won two AL Manager of the Year awards.  This might be his most impressive managing job with the Indians/Guardians yet, though.  The White Sox were supposed to run away with the AL Central.  They didn't.  The Guardians did.  With Jose Ramirez and a ton of rookies.  He took the youngest team in baseball and won 92 games, and they won the division going away.

Scott Servais, meanwhile, led the Mariners to their first postseason berth in 21 years.  Seattle won 90 games last season, so their making the playoffs wasn't a complete surprise.  But they didn't make it easy on themselves.  They won practically every close game they played in!

But, while the Guardians and Mariners both made the playoffs, what happened in Baltimore this season was simply remarkable.  The Orioles were 131-218 over Brandon Hyde's first three seasons as manager, and there was no reason to think this year would be any different.  Instead, they were the biggest surprise in baseball.  Despite playing in the toughest division, they weren't eliminated from the playoff race until Sept. 30.  Yes, they were "only" 83-79.  But that's a 32-win improvement from 2021.  If that isn't Manager of the Year worthy, I don't know what is!

Baltimore finished fourth in the AL East...behind three playoff teams.  There's only been one manager of a fourth-place team to be named Manager of the Year--Joe Girardi in 2006 (and the Marlins promptly fired him right after).  It's never happened in the American League.  But not only do I think it'll happen this year, I'll be surprised if it doesn't.

Brandon Hyde has already been named Sporting News AL Manager of the Year.  And for good reason!  Because the managing job he did in Baltimore this season is one of the best I've seen in a long time!  Hyde 1, Francona 2, Servais 3.

Awards Season: The Rookies

We've reached awards season in MLB, the week when the debate over who "should" win and who "will" win finally ends!  Although, let's face it, the people who think someone else "should" win an award over the player who does win it won't shut up even after the results are announced (yes, I'm talking to you, the "Ohtani also pitches" crew).  Hell, we've even got those who are upset about the finalists (who are just the top three vote-getters).

As usual, we get started with the Rookie of the Year, which is unique among the awards.  You can obviously only win Rookie of the Year once in your career, but that's not the only reason.  It's also the only award where you don't need to be in the Majors the entire year.  It certainly helps, but it's not a requirement.  In fact, sometimes the rookies who are called up mid-year are the ones who have the biggest impact.

Take Kris Bryant, perhaps the best example of the terrible practice where teams keep their best young players in the Minors for a few weeks in order to delay their free agency.  As a result, Bryant wasn't called up until the end of April.  That didn't stop him from winning Rookie of the Year.  Then there's Randy Arozarena, who had his breakout in the 2020 postseason, but still had rookie eligibility last year, when he ended up winning the award in the AL!

Fortunately, teams can't get away with doing that anymore.  As a part of the new CBA, the top two finishers automatically get a full year of service time regardless of when they're called up.  So, hopefully in the future, that means we'll see Rookie of the Year finalists with 130 games played or 30 starts.  Which doesn't mean we still won't have the impactful midseason call-ups who are finalists.

This year, we've got Adley Rutschman.  Everybody knew the former No. 1 overall pick was ready for the Majors, but the Orioles didn't call him up until May.  And when they did, they took off!  Rutschman was their best player, and there's no way Baltimore finishes 83-79 without him!

Rutschman's biggest competition in the AL is Mariners center fielder Julio Rodriguez.  Rodriguez was the clear favorite at midseason, when he made the All*Star Team and reached the finals of the Home Run Derby.  And what I said about Rutschman applies to Rodriguez, as well.  Seattle made the playoffs for the first time in 21 years!  Their impressive rookie center fielder was a big reason why.

Another AL playoff team with a starting outfielder who's a Rookie of the Year finalist is the Cleveland Guardians.  They had the youngest roster in the Majors and used something like 15 rookies this season, so the fact that they have a finalist shouldn't be too big of a surprise.  That finalist is Steven Kwan, who made the Opening Day roster and became a fixture both in left field and atop the Cleveland lineup.

It's a little surprising that Jeremy Pena didn't finish in the top three, but, seeing as he was both ALCS and World Series MVP, I think he'll get over it.  Likewise, I thought we might see Bobby Witt, Jr.'s name among the top three.  He played 150 games and had 57 extra base hits.  But Kansas City wasn't any good, so that may have factored in.

Over in the National League, Atlanta was the team that used a lot of rookies.  So many, in fact, that two Braves are finalists--Spencer Strider and Michael Harris II.  Strider began the season in the bullpen before moving into the rotation because of injuries to others in late May.  And he pitched so well that they couldn't take him out!  He finished with 200 strikeouts in just 130 innings!  That's nuts.

Strider's first start was on May 30.  That's two days after Harris made his debut.  Despite spending two months in the Minors, he quickly became the Braves' starting center fielder.  And he stayed there even after Atlanta's other outfielders came back!  The Braves didn't look much like the defending World Series champions on Memorial Day.  Almost as soon as Harris arrived, they went on a 14-game winning streak.  They ended up winning 101 games and the division.

There were also a bunch of significant rookies on the Cardinals (which is somewhat ironic since they also counted two retiring future Hall of Famers among their regulars).  Perhaps the most significant was Brendan Donovan, who they could literally put anywhere on the field.  He won a Gold Glove as a utility player, in fact!

While that top three is pretty clear, Seiya Suzuki did have a solid first year with the Cubs after coming over from Japan.  Ditto for Reds pitcher Alexis Diaz.  He pitched for a team that was not very good, but went 7-3 and had a sub-2.00 ERA.  Diaz eventually became Cincinnati's closer and finished with 10 saves.  Still, they're a distant fourth and fifth behind Donovan and the two Braves.

And, frankly, Donovan is a distant third behind the two Braves.  The last time teammates went 1-2 in Rookie of the Year voting was 2011, when another set of Braves--Craig Kimbrel (the unanimous winner) and Freddie Freeman--did it.  And, just like 11 years ago, I think the pitcher finishes atop that Braves 1-2.  I've got Strider, Harris, Donovan in that order.

In the American League, I think it comes down to Rodriguez vs. Rutschman.  As great as Adley Rutschman's season was, though, how can you give it to him over Jose Rodriguez?  Rodriguez was the only rookie at the All*Star Game, and his numbers in the second half were just as impressive.  And, sorry Steven Kwan, but you're not in my top three.  My AL Rookie of the Year ballot is: 1. Rodriguez, 2. Rutschman, 3. Witt.

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 10)

This is a special week in the NFL.  The Seahawks and Bucs are playing in Munich, the first-ever NFL game in Germany.  It won't be the last, either.  There'll be at least three more, with Munich and Frankfurt alternating as the host.  And they gave the Germans a great game, too.  Unlike London, which gets the Jaguars every year.  The German game will probably continue to be a good one moving forward.  Both the Patriots and Chiefs have expressed interest in playing there, so you'd have to figure it'll be one of them next season and the other shortly after that.

Frankly, I'm surprised it took the NFL this long to have a game in Germany.  Five of the six teams in NFL Europe played in Germany, some of which still have a massive fan base.  So it's clear that there's plenty of potential in the German market.  Likewise, I think the moving around Germany is smart.  If they ever decide to schedule a game in Berlin, I have no doubt they'll sell out the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium!

Interestingly, Munich wasn't one of the five German cities that was home to an NFL Europe team.  In addition to Berlin and Frankfurt, the others were based in Cologne, Dusseldorf and Frankfurt.  Munich does have the beautiful Allianz Arena that's the home stadium for one of the most famous soccer teams in the world, though, so the choice does make sense.  As for the game itself...

Thursday Night: Carolina (Win)

Seahawks (6-3) vs Buccaneers (4-5): Seattle-Seattle is on perhaps the longest road trip in NFL history (it was probably longer for those teams that played preseason games in Asia in the 90s, but this is certainly the farthest in the regular season).  So I wonder if the travel and nine-hour time difference will have an impact.  I'm still picking them to win, but you know Brady is relishing the opportunity to participate in something new.  Also, how sad is it that if the Seahawks win, dropping Tampa Bay to 4-6, the Bucs will still be tied for first place?

Vikings (7-1) at Bills (6-2): Buffalo-Josh Allen's health is by far the biggest question mark heading into the game, and it could have a major bearing on who wins.  If Allen plays, the Bills are the clear favorite, especially at home.  If he doesn't, the Vikings' chances increase significantly.  Although, whether Allen plays or not shouldn't matter to the Buffalo defense.  And that's why I have a feeling the Bills may win either way.

Lions (2-6) at Bears (3-6): Chicago-With the Packers reeling, this game takes on heightened importance.  Of course, the Vikings are already running away with the division and will likely win it going away, but who knows what can happen if one of these two gets the momentum going?  We've already seen the Bears destroy the Patriots.  Can they do the same to the Lions?

Broncos (3-5) at Titans (5-3): Tennessee-Last Sunday night's loss to the Chiefs was a setback for the Titans to be sure, but all it really affects is their playoff seeding.  The AFC South is still well within their control, which will continue to be the case after they host the Broncos.  And, hey, at least Denver isn't a national game this week!

Jaguars (3-6) at Chiefs (6-2): Kansas City-How big was pulling that game out against the Titans last week?  Now Kansas City is definitely a player in the race for home field and the AFC's 1-seed.  So, it could be the Chiefs who end up being the biggest beneficiary of Josh Allen's injury.  Of course, if they lose to the Jaguars at home, that would change everything.  And, frankly, they wouldn't deserve the bye if that happens.

Browns (3-5) at Dolphins (6-3): Miami-We've almost reached the point where the Browns get their sexual harrasser of a quarterback is eligible to return.  His first practice will be on Monday, in fact.  I've wasted too much space here already talking about that guy and how disgusting it is that he has a guaranteed contract.  Fortunately, Cleveland won't be relevant in the playoff race once he starts playing games in December.  The Dolphins, meanwhile, will be very relevant in the playoff race at 7-3.

Texans (1-6-1) at Giants (6-2): Giants-Coming off a loss and their bye week, the Giants are still in pretty good shape.  And they're just two wins away from avoiding another 10-loss season.  That magic number should be cut to one after they host the Texans.  Say what you want about the Giants "not being that good."  They can only play the teams that are on their schedule.  And their schedule says "Houston" this week, so that's who they're playing.

Saints (3-6) at Steelers (2-6): New Orleans-It might just be about time to call it.  It's not gonna happen in Pittsburgh this season, and Steelers fans will have to brace for a new reality.  They not only won't make the playoffs, they'll be lucky to avoid a 10-loss season.  Yes, life without Ben Roethlisberger is proving to be more difficult than they imagined.  The Saints, meanwhile, are in much better shape.  In fact, depending on how the Bucs-Seahawks game goes, they could be tied for first at the end of the day.

Colts (3-5-1) at Raiders (2-6): Indianapolis-The Colts realized they needed to do something before the season completely got away from them.  (Or, at least, something else after benching Matt Ryan.)  So Frank Reich got canned and he was replaced by Peyton Manning's center, Jeff Saturday, who has absolutely no experience.  Incredibly, the season isn't lost, though.  And, fortunately for Saturday, his first game is against the equally-inept Raiders.

Cowboys (6-2) at Packers (3-6): Dallas-Has FOX been plugging this game enough?  I've seriously seen almost as many promos for this game over the past few weeks as I have political commercials.  To an extent I get it.  It's a marquee matchup between two of the premier teams in the league.  But, from what we've seen from both teams, it shouldn't be a contest.  Dallas wins big.

Cardinals (3-6) at Rams (3-5): Rams-What's going on in the NFC West?  We went into the season thinking everybody but Seattle might be a playoff team, but at midseason, it's the Seahawks who are in first place, while both the Cardinals and Rams are struggling.  They both need a win very badly, too.  They've both lost two in a row and are in danger of falling out of the playoff race completely if they don't get this one.  I think our streak of Super Bowl home teams will come to an end.  Since I have no confidence in the Cardinals' ability to win this game.

Chargers (5-3) at 49ers (4-4): Chargers-I know I complain about Denver and Chicago being on national TV seemingly every week, but San Francisco also on national TV a lot.  It's definitely 49ers overload, but they're at least good.  So are the Chargers, who the Sunday Night Football audience will get to see in back-to-back weeks.  That game next week will become even bigger, as the Chargers will continue to keep pace with the Chiefs atop the division.

Commanders (4-5) at Eagles (8-0): Philadelphia-As I've said before, I don't think the Eagles will go undefeated.  But as long as they keep winning, we'll keep talking about it.  They haven't played the Giants yet, and they still have games against Dallas and Tennessee on the schedule, as well as the Packers, who may actually show up that week!  It won't end this week, though.  The Eagles will be 9-0.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-5
Overall: 79-57-1 

Starting Hot Stove Season

I'm SHOCKED!  SHOCKED, I tell you, that Clayton Kershaw re-signed with the Dodgers on a one-year deal!  That's going to be the case from now until whenever Kershaw decides to retire.  He'll enter every offseason as a free agent before signing a one- or two-year deal to stay in LA.  So they might as well not even include him on the free agent lists every year.

Kershaw likely won't be the only high-profile free agent who ends up re-signing with his old team.  There can be some surprises, of course.  There are every winter in free agency.  Take last year for example.  We all thought it was a foregone conclusion Freddie Freeman would stay in Atlanta, only for him to end up with the Dodgers (and end up firing his agents for botching his Braves contract as a result).

Aaron Judge is the biggest name out there this offseason and will command a huge contract after his record-setting season.  Still, most people figure he'll stay with the Yankees, with the Giants seen as their only real competition (potentially setting up a very awkward situation on Opening Day when those two teams meet at Yankee Stadium).  Likewise, Anthony Rizzo, despite opting out of his deal, will also likely be back in pinstripes next season on a longer-term contract.

There are other free agents who I'd be surprised to see go anywhere.  Justin Verlander is the first name that comes to mind.  And, while he'll test the waters and I wouldn't be completely shocked if he goes, I think the most likely scenario is that Jacob deGrom returns to the Mets.

But, there are also plenty of big names who'll be on the move.  That doesn't even take trades into account either!  Or the Japanese outfielder who'll likely be posted this winter and draw heavy interest from multiple big-market clubs.  Which will obviously have an impact on the free agent market, as well.

With so many free agents who play the same position, too, we might see free agents who are effectively traded for each other.  And they'll be setting the market for each other, too.  When all the dust settles, though, here's where I see 10 of this year's top free agents playing on Opening Day 2023 (not including those I already mentioned)...

Trea Turner, Braves-All of the shortstops need to be taken together since they'll all have a direct bearing on each other.  The question is who'll sign first?  Turner will be the most expensive, and he probably won't be returning to the Dodgers.  Plenty of teams will want him, but I'm just playing a hunch he ends up in Atlanta, which means the next guy on our list will go elsewhere.

Dansby Swanson, Cubs-Call me crazy, but I can see the Cubs trying to make a big splash in free agency.  They aren't really that far from contending.  And Dansby Swanson is the type of guy I can see them going for.  But then again, maybe not, since it's also rumored that they're looking to trade Ian Happ and will likely lose Willson Contreras, who are currently their two best players.  All the more reason to give Swanson a lot of money and build around him.

Xander Bogaerts, Twins-Boston needs the money to re-sign Rafael Devers and already has Trevor Story on the roster.  Which leads me to believe Xander Bogaerts will be wearing a different uniform next season.  I bet he takes a one- or two-year deal with an opt-out so that he can test the waters again.  As for 2023, I'll say he's in Minnesota.  Because they'll have the $20 million to throw at him after...

Carlos Correa, Dodgers-Correa opted out of his deal and has publicly said he'd be welcome to returning to Minnesota.  But, seeing as the Dodgers won't be re-signing Turner and Correa is the next-best shortstop on the market, I see him heading west.  They offer will simply be too high for anybody else to match.

Willson Contreras, Cardinals-Could something like this actually happen?  Yadi Molina retired, so the Cardinals need a catcher.  And Contreras is by far the best catcher available on the market.  He'll have plenty of suitors, some of which may be willing to overpay for him, which would probably knock St. Louis out of the mix.  In terms of the best fit for Contreras, though, I don't think anyone else can compete.

Jose Abreu, Astros-In one of those free agent prediction lists, I saw Abreu to the Astros, which I found particularly intriguing.  Because it actually makes a whole lot of sense!  Yuli Gurriel is also a free agent, so, if he goes, they'll need a first baseman.  Now just imagine Jose Abreu in that lineup instead of Yuli Gurriel.  Scary, right?

Brandon Nimmo, Giants-Steve Cohen has a lot of money and obviously isn't shy about spending it.  He doesn't have an endless supply, though, and there's this thing called the luxury tax (which he's already proven he doesn't care about), too.  And, seeing as the Mets have like six starting outfielders and Nimmo's a free agent, I can see him going elsewhere.  Especially since he'll be one of the top outfielders available who won't break the bank.  If the Giants don't get Judge, I can easily see them pursuing Nimmo instead.

Carlos Rodon, Rangers-Assuming Verlander stays with the Astros, Rodon is the best free agent starting pitcher out there after deGrom.  The Rangers have money, are willing to spend it, and badly need starting pitching.  Which means they'll be in on all the front-line starters.  They'll probably make a push for deGrom, but if they don't get him, Rodon's not a bad alternative.  Who also happens to be far less expensive, allowing them to have some extra money to spend elsewhere.

Noah Syndergaard, Nationals-He's already played for the Mets and Phillies, so why not go for the entire NL East?!  Syndergaard's an interesting case.  He's a No. 3 or 4 starter on a good team, but he's a No. 1 or 2 on a weaker team.  So, does he go for the No. 3 or 4 money to play for a contender?  Or the No. 1 or 2 money to pitch for a team that isn't good?  Or, does the same thing that happened last season happen again and he goes from a team like the Nationals to a team in the hunt at the trade deadline?

Aroldis Chapman, Marlins-Yes, his Yankees career ended spectacularly, and there's little to no chance he re-signs with them.  But Chapman can still be an elite closer (and I mean closer, which was part of the problem in the second half of last season).  So you know someone's gonna take a chance on him as a closer.  Probably a not-so-good National League team that will hope he bounces back, then can leverage him as a trade chip to a contender at the deadline.  A team like the Marlins.

My 2022 NFL Picks (Week 9)

We've reached the halfway point of the NFL season and the Eagles are still undefeated.  Philly got to 8-0 with its victory in Houston on Thursday night, which obviously got the talk of the '72 Dolphins going.  Do I think the '72 Dolphins are safe?  Yes, I do.  But, considering how collectively bad most of the league has been this season, the fact that somebody's still undefeated is cool.

Speaking of those other teams that have been collectively bad, they're running out of time to get their acts together.  Especially since their schedules won't exactly get easier.  Although, I think it's a safe bet to say we're looking at multiple 10-7 or 9-8 playoff teams, maybe even division winners.  So that, frankly, should be the goal.

Thursday Night: Philadelphia (Win)

Chargers (4-3) at Falcons (4-4): Atlanta-The Falcons are perhaps the most surprising division leader in the NFL, which I think says more about the rest of the NFC South than it does about them.  Especially when you consider we were a Panthers field goal away from it being a four-way tie at 3-5.  After this week, the NFC South leader will be above .500 for the first time since Week 5.  Because I don't know why, but I think the Falcons win.

Dolphins (5-3) at Bears (3-5): Miami-I don't think it's a coincidence that the Dolphins are 2-0 since getting Tua back.  Granted, they haven't played the strongest opponents and they barely beat both the Steelers and Lions.  But the point is they beat both of them, and they're sitting comfortably in a playoff position at 5-3.  Make that 6-3 unless the Bears pull off one of their random good weeks.

Panthers (2-6) at Bengals (4-4): Cincinnati-Even though the Panthers aren't good, they sure make life difficult for their opponents!  They haven't won a game outside of their division, but have really only gotten blown out once.  Which means the Bengals are in for a dogfight (catfight?) this week.  They should find a way to pull it out, though.

Packers (3-5) at Lions (1-6): Green Bay-Of all the teams with shockingly bad records, the Packers are perhaps the most surprising.  Maybe this is why they'd never played in London before!  They were 3-1 when they went out there, but haven't won since.  Four straight losses for a team that had become accustomed to only losing three all season.  And they've got Dallas, Tennessee, Philadelphia after this, so that could easily become eight if they don't beat the Lions.

Colts (3-4-1) at Patriots (4-4): New England-This is one of the most difficult games this week for me to pick.  Mainly because both teams have been so hit-and-miss all season.  It'll depend on which version of each team shows up.  Will it be the Colts that beat the Chiefs or the Colts that tied the Texans?  Will it be the Patriots that dominated the Jets or the Patriots that got their butts kicked by the Bears?  Since the game's at Foxboro, though, I'll take the chalk and say the good Patriots show up.

Bills (6-1) at Jets (5-3): Buffalo-If the playoffs started today, the Jets would be a wild card team.  That's still true after losing at home to the Patriots for the 10 millionth time in a row last week.  Things don't get any easier this week, as they play their second straight home division game against arguably the best team in the AFC.  At least this week, the loss will be a little less unexpected.

Vikings (6-1) at Commanders (4-4): Minnesota-Don't look now, but the Vikings have a 3.5-game lead and we're only just now hitting the halfway point!  So, Minnesota's in really good shape and can afford a clunker.  Of course, they're also just a game behind the Eagles (who beat them in Week 2, Minnesota's only loss so far), so they need to keep it going.  And there's no reason to think they won't in Washington.

Raiders (2-5) at Jaguars (2-6): Jacksonville-Then you have games like this one.  But even the bad teams need to play somebody every week, and when they play each other you know one of them has to win.  I'm saying Jacksonville here because, well, why not?  On paper, the Raiders are slightly less bad, but they mailed it in last week in New Orleans and I don't see faring much better with another 10 am Pacific kickoff.

Seahawks (5-3) at Cardinals (3-5): Arizona-While Atlanta's the most surprising division leader, the Seahawks are right there behind them.  I think their being in first place speaks to the parity of the NFC West more than anything else.  There haven't been many NFC West division games yet, and I have a feeling that they'll all just beat each other up.  I'm also more inclined to take the home teams in those battles.  Thus, I'm going with the Cardinals here.

Rams (3-4) at Buccaneers (3-5): Rams-When they picked this one as an exclusive national late game midway through the season, I don't think anyone expected it to be essentially a must-win for both teams.  Yet here we are.  The Rams are below .500 (which is more a consequence of their schedule), while the Bucs are, shockingly, 3-5.  This is by far the worst three-game stretch of Brady's career.  Can it conceivably be a four-game losing streak that they take to Munich?

Titans (5-2) at Chiefs (5-2): Kansas City-Our Sunday night matchup features the No. 1 and 2 seeds in the AFC from last year's playoffs.  And this one is huge for this season's playoff seeding.  The winner won't just go a game ahead, they'll also have the head-to-head tiebreaker.  So, yeah, this is a big game.  It's also the type of game that the Chiefs usually thrive in.  The Titans are good, but they aren't at that level just yet.

Ravens (5-3) at Saints (3-5): Baltimore-Sunday night will have a direct bearing on Monday night.  Because if the Ravens win, they'll be tied with whoever loses that one.  Of course, Baltimore needs to worry about winning the AFC North before it can worry about seeding (especially after what happened last year).  And they'll get a challenge from the Saints.  Not enough for them to lose, but enough for them to know they need to bring it.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-5
Overall: 71-52-1

Is He Crazy? Or Just Stupid?

One of my Facebook friends summed up Kyrie Irving pretty succinctly and pretty accurately the other day: "He's a lunatic!"  I couldn't have said it better myself.  Because just when you think he can't do anything crazier or more outrageous, he finds a way to outdo himself.  So, we actually shouldn't have been surprised about his latest misadventure.

I'm, of course, talking about his tweet promoting an antisemitic Netflix movie.  Kyrie eventually deleted the tweet, but not after the damage was already done.  The Nets gave him a chance to backtrack and apologize, but this is Kyrie we're talking about.  Of course he didn't!

In a way, I admire his commitment.  Even when he's wrong, he refuses to back down.  Even though it would've been incredibly easy to issue a halfhearted apology that he didn't really mean, he didn't do it.  Instead, he went on the attack, blaming the media for asking him the same questions that he continually refused to answer and vowing to "learn from the experience."

That's the thing, though.  Kyrie went to Duke.  Duke's a very good school.  I know he only went there to play basketball, but still.  Shouldn't he have learned something while he was there?  Beyond that, wouldn't common sense dictate that antisemitism is bad?

Kyrie eventually did issue his apology, but it was already too late by that point.  The Nets suspended him for at least five games for conduct detrimental to the team and made him make a donation to the anti-defamation league.  Kyrie has also lost some endorsements, and Nike has cancelled the launch of his latest shoe.

Last year, of course, Kyrie was in the news pretty much all season because of his refusal to get vaccinated.  He wasn't allowed to even enter the facility unless/until he got the shot.  As a result, Kyrie couldn't play in home games for most of the season (although, oddly, he was able to attend as a fan as long as he remained in the stands, which made very little sense).  The vaccine mandate was lifted late in the season, so he was available for the playoffs, but his constantly being in and out of the lineup is a big reason why they ended up getting swept in the first round after entering the season as a title contender.

The Nets stood by him through all that.  And it appears they're standing by him again.  They've vowed that the five-game suspension is a minimum and he'll have to go through several steps before he's allowed to rejoin the team, but general manager Sean Marks also explicitly said they won't release him.  So they're clearly willing to put up with the Kyrie Circus.  But for how long?

How long will they put up with his shenanigans before they decide enough is enough?  Yes, they're paying him a lot of money.  But is that worth the headache?  And when will they finally admit that just maybe he might be part of the problem...if not the entire problem?

It's been a dysfunctional mess in Brooklyn for a while now.  The Nets made a big splash with all of their superstar acquisitions, putting Kevin Durant, Kyrie Irving and James Harden on the same team.  How could they lose?  Well, as it turns out, very easily!  Because it takes more than superstars to have a winning team.  Especially when those superstars are oft-injured (Durant) or their own worst enemy (Kyrie).

Harden decided he'd had enough and asked for a trade, so they obliged him and sent him to Philadelphia, getting Ben Simmons in return.  Swapping Harden for Simmons has made very little difference, though.  The Nets got off to a horrible start this season.  Someone had to pay the price, and it was Head Coach Steve Nash.  And it looks like they're going to hire Ime Udoka, who's currently suspended by the Celtics for an inappropriate relationship with a female team employee, as their new head coach.  Let that sink in for a second.

Nash's firing is all the proof you need that the Nets are willing to let the players do pretty much whatever they want with little to no consequences.  Nash couldn't win.  He never had the team's support.  In fact, the players were openly calling for his firing.  How is a coach supposed to succeed in that environment?  And, to make matters worse, the Nets seem perfectly content to let it continue.  They aren't concerned with winning as much as they're concerned with keeping their highly-paid players happy.

Why else would they put up with Kyrie and all his antics?  The vaccine thing was one thing.  (As I've said before, the difference with Kyrie and Djokovic is that Djokovic at least has a reason for not getting vaccinated.  His reason is stupid, but it's still an actual reason.  Kyrie's reason, meanwhile, is "I don't want to and you can't make me.")  But this is completely different.  And it's nothing more than an example of Kyrie's ignorance and stupidity.

Even if it was sheer ignorance, it's plain stupid.  Simply by tweeting the link, he made it look like he was promoting the film.  Whether he knew what it was actually about doesn't matter.  And the fact that he either didn't realize how that looked or didn't care just makes him look so much worse!  Actually, scratch that, the only thing that would be worse is if he actually believes it.

Which brings me back to my original question.  Is he crazy?  Or just stupid?  Does it even matter?  Bottom line, Kyrie Irving is unpredictable.  Meanwhile, the Nets are left doing damage control every time he says or does something ridiculous (which is often).  How long are they willing to do that?  And is it even worth it?  Especially when everyone's life would be so much easier if they just cut him loose.