Four Is Enough

The Seattle Mariners caused quite a stir over the weekend when they announced that they were dropping their gray jerseys because of a new MLB rule limiting teams to "only" four uniform options for the 2023 season (not counting the City Connect because, well, you've gotta have those!).  The theory behind four makes complete sense.  White, gray, color and alternate.  Or white, gray and two colors.  The Mariners had two colors (green and navy) in addition to white and gray, as well as an alternate cream for home games that they decided to keep.  So, another one had to go, and they chose the gray.

Predictably, reaction ran the gamut.  Plenty of people criticized MLB and Nike for putting a cap on the number of uniforms a team can have.  Besides, MLB isn't the only sport to do it.  There are already caps on the number of uniforms NFL and NHL teams can wear (three), and that doesn't seem to be an issue with anybody.  

Personally, I'd love to see the NBA adopt a cap on the number of uniforms.  Because they've gotten out of control!  I don't even know how many options each team has, but it's a lot!  And I think Oregon football wears a different uniform for every game!

There are also the people who are calling the Mariners trendsetters by calling them the "first team" to not have gray uniforms, which isn't even close to being correct!  There was, of course, the powder blue era in the late 70s and 80s, which also featured those mix-and-match Pirates uniforms with the black, yellow and white pinstripe options.  Cleveland had an all-red uniform then, too.  Then, in the 80s, the Cubs wore blue tops on the road and the Astros had an off-white uniform that they wore on the road during the tequila sunrise era.

Seattle won't even be the only team that primarily wears a color other than gray on the road!  While none of these teams have made their colored top "official," the Rays wear navy, the Marlins wear black and the Angels wear red on the road more or as frequently as they wear gray.  The White Sox, meanwhile, wear black pretty often both at home and on the road.  And, in case you were worried about the Mariners playing on the road against an opponent that's wearing navy tops, they'll wear the green ones in those games.

Of course, some people also wondered why they decided to drop gray and keep each of the other three, which is a reasonable question.  They only wear the alternates at home, so you drop the green and you still have navy as an option both at home and on the road.  Or, you drop the alternates (which don't seem to be that popular with Mariners fans) and you have three color choices for road games.

MLB teams having a third jersey makes complete sense.  They're popular with fans, and it makes it so that, if they have a doubleheader, they don't have to wear the same one for both games.  I have no problem with teams having an alternate jersey or a second color, either.  The Orioles, for example, have an orange home alternate and a black road alternate.  That's all you need!

Some teams, meanwhile, only have two uniforms and like it that way.  OK, two teams.  The Yankees and Dodgers.  They'll occasionally wear something different for a special event, and the Dodgers do have a City Connect.  But, for the most part, you're only seeing pinstripes and gray for the Yankees or white and gray for the Dodgers.  (And the Cardinals have their Sunday home alternates, but no colored jersey.)

Alternate uniforms aren't going anywhere, either.  The Cardinals aren't the only ones who have a throwback look for Sunday home games.  The White Sox wear their wonderfully-bad mid-80s throwbacks on Sunday afternoons, and the Brewers used to until they updated their logo and made it a modernized version of their classic ball-in-glove.  The Padres, meanwhile, have honored the military with their Sunday camouflage tops for years.

For the most part, though, teams have limited themselves to only one or two options beyond the traditional white and gray, so it's not like everybody's gonna have this problem.  In fact, I can't think of anybody other than the Mariners who has to drop an option in order to meet the four-uniform limit.  Which is a pretty clear sign that the four-uniform limit isn't really too extreme!

It also seems unlikely that MLB will regulate uniforms beyond telling you that you can only have four.  Could they require every team to have a white and a gray, then leave the other two up to them?  Sure!  But they won't do that!  Besides, even without restrictions, we're not gonna see teams start straying from the traditional white at home/gray on the road.  This isn't the 70s, when polyester was new and teams were excited that they could actually use colors so they went a little overboard!

In fact, that's exactly what I think the four-uniform rule was designed to do.  Prevent teams from going overboard.  When the Pirates had those mix-and-match uniforms in the 70s, they had nine different possible combinations!  I think we can all agree that's a little excessive!  Also, let's not forget, Nike makes the uniforms for all 30 teams, so they might've had some influence over the decision.  And, if they did, so what?  Nike has every right to make that request as MLB's uniform designer.

So, even though they're the ones making headlines, the Mariners aren't exactly starting a trend here.  The Angels, Rays and Marlins rarely wear gray tops on the road, and a lot of other teams are pretty evenly split between gray and color.  Seattle's only unique in that they won't even have gray as an option.  And we'll see how long that lasts.  Because I've got a feeling it won't be too long.  They might even bring gray back as early as 2024.

And it's not like seeing the road team in a color other than gray will be weird anyway!  Teams have been wearing third jerseys for years!  Both at home and on the road!  It's actually gotten to the point where white vs. gray is the unusual matchup!  So, while the Mariners' decision may have caught people off guard and will no doubt bother some baseball purists, ultimately, it's not a big deal at all.

My 2022-23 NFL Picks (Championship Sunday)

We've reached Championship Sunday in the NFL, and it may be the last one.  It was somewhat shocking but also entirely not surprising that Roger Baddell has suggested they may split the Conference Championship Games, playing one on Sunday and the other on Monday night.  This is an incredibly stupid idea for a number of reasons, but you know if Baddell is talking about it in public, that also means it's pretty much a done deal.  It's just a matter of when they decide to do it.

There's also been a suggestion that something the NFL avoided this year is also inevitable--neutral site Conference Championship Games.  Completely opposed to that idea too, and I actually do think there will be enough pushback from the owners to prevent it from actually happening except in extreme circumstances (like we had this year).  The Super Bowl being at a neutral site is something different entirely.  That's determined years in advance. 

The Conference Championship Game, however, should be on one of the team's home field.  That's the entire point of grinding through a 17-game season and trying to have the best record--so you can have home field advantage in the playoffs!  What would be the point of going for the 1-seed if all it means is you get a bye and one home playoff game?  Especially when the 2-seed would be guaranteed at least two (provided they won the first one)?

Anyway, I'm sure we'll hear plenty more about the Sunday/Monday night and netural site Conference Championship plans after the season.  This year's Conference Championship Games feature three of the four teams we saw last year.  That hasn't happened in 30 years, when the Bills were in the middle of their run and the Cowboys played the 49ers in three consecutive NFC Championship Games.  And the only one that isn't back is the team that won the Super Bowl!

And, frankly, I can legitimately see any of the four teams not just winning this week, but winning two weeks from now, too.  It's also very easy to envision any of the four potential Super Bowl matchups coming to fruition.  I know that sounds like a cop out, and that's not what I'm trying to do at all.  I'm just saying there isn't much separating the 49ers and Eagles or the Bengals and Chiefs.  So, even though I'm confident in my picks, I can easily see both games going either way.

Just think about some of the Super Bowl possibilities we have, too.  The Bengals have been to three Super Bowls and played the 49ers in two of them (and were a Rams drive away from making it 3-for-3).  The 49ers had the lead in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl LV, only to see the Chiefs score three consecutive touchdowns.  And where do I start with Eagles-Chiefs?  The Kelce brothers!  Andy Reid vs. his former team!  The only potential matchup that doesn't have some sort of already prewritten story is Bengals-Eagles.  Which of course means that's probably what we'll get!

49ers (15-4) at Eagles (15-3): Philadelphia-Even after watching them against the Cowboys last week, I'm still not overly impressed with the 49ers.  They're obviously doing something right.  I get that.  But this team just doesn't scream "Super Bowl champion" to me.  There just seems to be something missing.  I don't know what it is, but it's something.

Yet, they've made it to the NFC Championship Game for the third time in four seasons with their third quarterback of the season, a rookie who still hasn't lost as an NFL starter.  Can Brock Purdy become the first rookie QB to start a Super Bowl?  Or does the run end in Philadelphia against an Eagles team that, last week against the Giants, looked like the one that raced out to a 13-1 start.

Both the 49ers and Eagles have elite defenses, so that's where I think the game will be won.  It won't necessarily be about which defense plays better, though.  It'll be more about which offense is able to get something going against the other defense.  Or at least get enough going consistently to move the ball and put points on the board.  And, this is an important factor, too.  The Eagles' defense is deeper.  So, they can sustain extended San Francisco drives better than the other way around.

I'm also very curious to see how Purdy handles his first playoff road game.  The 49ers haven't lost since Week 7, so they've obviously won on the road during that span.  But they also haven't left the Pacific time zone that entire time.  In fact, they've only played three games in the Eastern or Central time zone all season, two of which were losses to not-very-good teams (the Bears and Falcons).  That was before Purdy took over, so this will be his first start in a different time zone.  Against a ridiculously good Eagles team.  I'm not saying it will be a factor.  I wouldn't be surprised if it is, though.

Will the fact that the game is being played in Philadelphia ultimately be the deciding factor in who wins?  Probably not.  It'll, again, be about which offense is able to do something more consistently against the other team's suffocating defense.  Which is why I think Jalen Hurts is actually the most important player in this game.  He'll make the plays.  He'll do what he has to do.  And he'll get the Eagles to the Super Bowl.

Bengals (14-4) at Chiefs (15-3): Kansas City-Let's give some credit to the Chiefs.  Not only are they playing in their fifth straight AFC Championship Game, they're hosting their fifth straight AFC Championship Game.  What makes that even more remarkable is the fact that they had hosted a grand total of ZERO AFC Championship Games prior to this record run.

Of course, Cincinnati doesn't care about any of that.  The Bengals went into Kansas City for the AFC Championship Game last year, were down 21-10 at halftime, and won in overtime, holding the Chiefs to just a field goal the rest of the way.  They've actually won three straight against the Chiefs, all in Kansas City, so they've got plenty of confidence heading into this year's rematch.  Although, they also seem a little too confident.  I'd even say it's bordering on cocky.

Cincinnati has taken everything about the unique playoff contingencies the NFL was forced to come up with (on the fly) as a slight.  They didn't like that they might've had home field against the Ravens decided by a coin toss.  They didn't like that they had to travel to Buffalo last week.  They really didn't like that the NFL was selling tickets to a potential Bills-Chiefs game in Atlanta!  They've used all that as motivation, playing the "they don't want us to win" card.  Whether that's accurate or not (it isn't), that's how the Bengals perceived it.  And your perception is your reality.

So, it should probably be no surprise, then, that Cincinnati is actually favored to make it back to the Super Bowl.  It makes sense when you consider the Bengals' track record, not just in Kansas City, but as an outstanding road playoff team over the last two seasons, coupled with the uncertainty surrounding Patrick Mahomes' ankle.  Although, it would be equally foolish to count out Mahomes and his coach, Andy Reid, who has more playoff victories than anybody other than Bill Belichick.

All week, we've been hearing about all the reasons why the Bengals are gonna win.  I think people are forgetting how good Kansas City is.  And the Chiefs are certainly just as aware as the Bengals that Joe Burrow is 3-0 against them in his career.  They'd like to make him (and the Bengals) shut up.  There's no better way to do that than unleashing that defense on Cincinnati's beleaguered offensive line.  They won't let the Bengals dominate the game the way they did in Buffalo.  And I think that'll make the difference.  Which is why I'm also picking the Chiefs.

Last Week: 2-2
Playoffs: 6-2
Overall: 172-107-2 

The Russia Problem

Russia has competed under three different names at the last four Olympics.  They were "Russia" in Rio and "OAR" in PyeongChang, then "ROC" in both Tokyo and Beijing.  With about a year and a half to go until the Paris Games, the question isn't just what Russia will be called.  It's whether they'll be there at all.

The reason for all the name changes, of course, is because of the sophisticated state-run doping system that was in place when they hosted the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi (as well as the 2013 Track & Field World Championships in Moscow).  The IOC's slap-on-the-wrist "sanctions" led to a ban on the Russian flag and anthem at the 2018 Games, as well as the not-at-all ambiguous designation "Olympic Athletes from Russia." 

After more details emerged, Russia received a harsher penalty, a four-year ban on the flag and anthem that also included the recommendation that international federations either not schedule events in Russia or, if possible, move ones that have already been awarded out of the country.  Approved Russian athletes were also not allowed to wear any National Team colors or mention the country's name at all.  That punishment, which was later reduced to two years, resulted in the team being referred to as "ROC" for "Russian Olympic Committee" (but only by the abbreviation) at both the 2020 and 2022 Olympics.

Those doping sanctions expired at the end of December, so Russian athletes, in theory, able to actually represent the country again.  Except they're still not.  Because of the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine, athletes from Russia (and its ally Belarus) have either been banned from international competition altogether or only allowed to compete as neutrals for almost a year.

There was an immediate impact to that decision.  Russian and Belarusian players were prohibited from entering Wimbledon last year, resulting in the Grand Slam tournament being stripped of ranking points.  More significantly, the Russian men's soccer team was disqualified from World Cup qualifying before the final round of the UEFA playoffs, and the women's team was still in the middle of its qualifying campaign for this year's World Cup.  Likewise, the Russian hockey team was removed from the top division at the Ice Hocky World Championships, and this year's tournament, which was originally scheduled for Russia, was moved to Finland and Latvia.  UEFA has moved several events out of Russia, as well. 

Meanwhile, World Athletics completely paused its "Authorized Neutral Athlete" program that has allowed approved Russians to compete internationally while the country's federation is suspended (Russia's track & field suspension started in 2015).  Belarusian athletes were also banned because of the invasion, and neither nation was allowed to enter anyone at either the World or European Championships last summer.

Since the Russian doping sanctions and the Russian suspension about the war overlapped in 2022, it didn't cause much of a ripple outside of Russia.  However, now that the doping sanctions have expired, the IOC and the international federations have a very unique situation on their hands.  They have to figure out what to do about Russia.  And the solution is definitely not going to satisfy everybody!

Everyone is still trying to figure out what to do, and there really is no right answer.  Since most of the West is opposed to any sort of Russian involvement in global sports until the war's over, and the war doesn't seem to be ending anytime soon, Russian athletes are in a state of flux.  Some may support the war, but many do not and have been outspoken about it.  Do they deserve to be punished for the actions of their nation's political leaders?  (Although, a very reasonable counterargument would be why should any Russians be allowed to compete while Ukranian athletes had to flee their homeland and haven't been able to return?)

IOC President Thomas Bach has been very clear that he thinks politics and sports should be kept separate (although, that's virtually impossible).  He lived through the 1980 and 1984 Olympic boycotts and doesn't want any athletes to pay the price for political reasons.  So, he'd like to see Russians in Paris.  Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, meanwhile, doesn't think any Russians or Belarusians should be allowed in Paris.  He has called for the ban on Russian and Belarusian athletes to continue until the Russian army is out of his country.

Is Zelenskyy biased?  Of course!  As such, his views should obviously be taken with a grain of salt.  But, there are a lot of people who agree with him, especially other European leaders.  So, again, we're at an impasse.  Russia is a part of the European federation in every sport.  So is Ukraine.  It's pretty clear which side the rest of Europe supports in this conflict.  So, it seems unlikely Russia will be welcomed back into the European fold anytime soon.

However, all indications are that Russia will send a team to Paris next summer.  Those Russian athletes need a chance to qualify, though.  If they can't do that through Europe, that's obviously a problem.  Especially since qualifying in some sports begins fairly soon.  That's where the interesting compromise comes in.  A compromise that, not surprisingly, not everyone is thrilled about.

While Russia is considered part of Eastern Europe culturally and most of the Russian population lives on the European side, let's not forget, most of the country is in Asia.  And Asian nations have been much more willing to accept Russian athletes.  So willing, in fact, that they've offered Russians the opportunity to participate in Asian Olympic qualifiers, starting with the upcoming Asian Games in China (which is one of the 14! countries that neighbors Russia...yeah, it's THAT big!).

Geographically, it makes complete sense.  Although, Russia isn't a part of the Asian federation in any sport, so I'm not sure how it would work otherwise.  If the Asian and European federations both sign off, I'm sure the IOC wouldn't oppose it, but would it be on a sport-by-sport basis?  I think it'd either have to be all or nothing.  Either their teams and individual athletes participate in Asian qualifying in every sport or none of them.

It's not the perfect solution.  But, unfortunately, the perfect solution to this very complex problem doesn't exist.  It'll obviously be an issue for some to see any Russian athletes competing anywhere while the war in Ukraine continues.  I totally get that.  I, personally, have no issue with this plan, though.  It gives Russians the opportunity to qualify while not making European athletes face them.

If the last three Olympics (PyeongChang, Tokyo, Beijing) have taught us anything, though, it's that the IOC will do everything in its power to make sure there's a Russian team (in some form) in Paris.  Not only is Russia too important to the Olympic movement (hence the very weak "penalties"), it'd be setting a very dangerous precedent to keep them out for political reasons.  So, as unfair as it may seem and as much as some countries might not like it, Russia will be there.  And, whether it's through Europe or Asia, they'll get their opportunity to qualify.

Baseball Hall of Fame Vote, 2023

Who will join Fred McGriff on stage in Cooperstown this July?  Will anybody?  Those are both legitimate questions as we get set to find out the results of the Baseball Hall of Fame vote.  With no sure-fire candidates, it seems very likely that the writers will pitch a shutout this year.  Although, with the ballot more wide-open than it's been in years, we could be in for a surprise, as some vote totals will probably increase dramatically.

Other than if anybody gets in and who, that's what I'm most intrigued by with this year's ballot.  Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Curt Schilling all reached their maximum 10 years in 2022 and moved on to the same Era Committee ballot that elected McGriff in December.  None of them ever got close to election, but they all drew varying degrees of support.  Will those votes now go to somebody else?

It certainly opened up my ballot.  The top three names on my list last year were either elected (David Ortiz) or exhausted their eligibility (Bonds & Clemens).  I also put down Mark Teixeira's name last year, and he's no longer on the ballot, either, after failing to get 5 percent of the vote.  So, with those four gone, it looks like I'm adding four new names...

1. Andy Pettitte, Pitcher (1995-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007-10 Yankees, 2012-13 Yankees): Yes, Andy Pettitte is the No. 1 name among my holdovers.  He was only at 10 percent last year, so I know he's facing an uphill battle, but that doesn't mean I support him any less.  Frankly, I think Pettitte's postseason success alone is Hall of Fame-caliber.  He won 19 career postseason games for the Yankees dynasty of the late 90s, but was nearly as good in the regular season, posting at least 15 wins eight times and pitching at least 200 innings 10 times (in addition to a full season's worth of innings in the postseason).

2. Jeff Kent, Second Baseman (1992 Blue Jays, 1992-96 Mets, 1996 Indians, 1997-2002 Giants, 2003-04 Astros, 2005-08 Dodgers): Why Jeff Kent, who's in his final year on the ballot, has never gotten more Hall of Fame support completely blows my mind!  Maybe he's been a victim of the ballot congestion caused by his Steroid Era contemporaries.  But, when Kent was in his prime, he was the second-best second baseman in baseball, behind only Hall of Famer Roberto Alomar.  And his 351 career home runs are the most-ever at the position.  He's got too much ground to make up, so he probably won't get in.  But I can see him getting McGriff-like support once he moves to the Era Committee.

3. Carlos Beltran, Outfielder (1998-2004 Royals, 2004 Astros, 2005-11 Mets, 2011 Giants, 2012-13 Cardinals, 2014-16 Yankees, 2016 Rangers, 2017 Astros): Beltran isn't just the best of this year's first-ballot candidates, he's probably the only one who'll make it to next year.  He was the only player publicly named in the sign-stealing scandal that marred the Astros' 2017 championship, but that's not enough to make you overlook his otherwise Hall of Fame-worthy career.  A 20-year career where he was consistently among the best hitters for both power and average while also playing stellar outfield defense.  Beltran's one of four players in history with at least 1500 runs, 2700 hits, 400 homers and 300 steals.

4. Andruw Jones, Outfielder (1996-2007 Braves, 2008 Dodgers, 2009 Rangers, 2010 White Sox, 2011-12 Yankees): There are only five Hall of Famers from those outstanding Braves teams of the 90s--the three pitchers, Chipper Jones, and manager Bobby Cox (McGriff makes six, but he was only there for four and a half seasons from 1993-97).  Andruw Jones is the next-most deserving member of that team.  His career is an interesting one.  He played an additional five years after leaving Atlanta, which I think actually hurts his case more than it helps it.  Because the Andruw Jones who played for the Atlanta Braves was one of the most outstanding five-tool players I've ever seen.  Not to mention one of the greatest defensive center fielders ever.

5. Todd Helton, First Baseman (1997-2013 Rockies): When he retired, I thought there was no way in Hell Todd Helton would ever be voted into the Hall of Fame.  Yet here we are, with the Class of 2023 set to be announced, and he's perhaps in the best position to get elected.  Helton's 17-year career was spent entirely in Colorado, but his numbers were far more than just the Coors Field Factor.  He was a consistent .300 hitter who the Rockies could always count on for 30-plus home runs.  Helton also stayed incredibly healthy, playing in at least 144 games 10 years in a row from 1998-2007, and was incredible defensively at first base.

6. Billy Wagner, Pitcher (1995-2003 Astros, 2004-05 Phillies, 2006-09 Mets, 2009 Red Sox, 2010 Braves): Billy Wagner's not in the same class as his Hall of Fame contemporaries Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman.  He's not even in the same class as the other Hall of Fame closers--Bruce Sutter, Goose Gossage and Lee Smith.  But, with the value of a good closer becoming more and more clear, the fact that Wagner was so good for so many years only proves his worthiness.  The numbers certainly back it up, too.  His 422 career saves are sixth-most all-time and second among left-handed closers.

7. Gary Sheffield, Outfielder (1998-91 Brewers, 1992-93 Padres, 1993-98 Marlins, 1998-2001 Dodgers, 2002-03 Braves, 2004-06 Yankees, 2007-08 Tigers, 2009 Mets): Like Fred McGriff, Gary Sheffield played on a lot of teams during his career (they were even briefly teammates on the Padres).  But, no matter where he played, the one thing Gary Sheffield always did was hit.  That's one of the reasons he was on so many teams in the first place!  He's a member of the 500-home run club and hit 20 or more 14 times.  He also had eight 100-RBI seasons and seven with 100 or more runs scored.

8. Scott Rolen, Third Baseman (1996-2002 Phillies, 2002-07 Cardinals, 2008-09 Blue Jays, 2009-12 Reds): Fun fact: I didn't know Scott Rolen played for the Blue Jays.  He obviously did.  I just don't remember it.  Anyway, Rolen's one of those guys who I've wanted to vote for in the past, but never had the room for.  So, now that the ballot congestion has been relieved, I can mark his name down with no hesitation.  He's a guy who it's easy to underappreciate how good he was.  His numbers weren't flashy.  Just consistent.  And he won eight Gold Gloves while playing every game of his 17-year career at third base.  Rolen was the leading vote-getter last year among players still on the ballot, so it wouldn't be surprising to see him get in.

9. Omar Vizquel, Shortstop (1989-93 Mariners, 1994-2004 Indians, 2005-08 Giants, 2009 Rangers, 2010-11 White Sox, 2012 Blue Jays): In the past, there have been years where I've been included Vizquel and there have been years where I haven't.  Last year I took him off, mostly because I needed a spot for Big Papi, but also because of the domestic violence and sexual assault allegations against him.  MLB is still investigating those charges, so I'll reserve judgment until then.  As a result, Vizquel returns to my ballot, since I think baseball-wise, he's one of the top 10 players on it.

10. Mark Buerhle, Pitcher (2000-11 White Sox, 2012 Marlins, 2013-15 Blue Jays): Picking the 10th spot was very hard.  I briefly considered A-Rod, but I would've been contradicting myself, since I draw a very clear line between guys like Bonds & Clemens, who never failed a test and never technically "cheated," and guys like A-Rod, who missed an entire season because of a PED suspension.  I also briefly considered leaving this spot blank.  But I've always been a "10-vote" guy, so that didn't seem right either.  Especially because, even though he's never gonna be a Hall of Famer, Mark Buehrle deserves a vote.  He was a consistent No. 1 starter who the White Sox could always rely on throwing 200 innings.  And Buehrle was spectacular in his prime.  Two no-hitters, including a perfect game, and an Opening Day Web Gem in 2010 that was so spectacular, ESPN created the "Buerhle Meter" to measure how all other defensive plays compared that season.  That play alone is Hall of Fame worthy!

As for who actually stands a legitimate chance of getting in, I think there are really only two people--Scott Rolen and Todd Helton.  They've been running neck-and-neck in the publicly-revealed votes, so it looks like voters are either going with both or neither on their ballots.  What that means?  I don't know.  I'm not sure either one gets 75 percent, though.  Which means it'll be the Fred McGriff Show in July.

My 2022-23 NFL Picks (Divisional)

Last week, I did something that I don't remember ever doing before.  I went undefeated in my picks.  I went back-and-forth about two games, but I ultimately went with both the Giants and Jaguars, and they both pulled off the win!  Will I go undefeated again this week?  Highly doubtful.  I feel fairly confident about two games, but the other two will be outstanding, close battles.

It's often said that Divisional Playoff weekend is the best football of the season, but I don't know how these four games will possibly compare to what we saw last week.  The only duds were the first and last game.  The four in the middle were spectacular, including that Jacksonville comeback, that 98-yard fumble return by Cincinnati, the Bills-Dolphins game that took ridiculously long, and that back-and-forth contest between the Giants and Vikings.  Seriously, how can this week compete?

Jaguars (10-8) at Chiefs (14-3): Kansas City-That Jaguars comeback against the Chargers really was something!  Trevor Lawrence looked totally overwhelmed in the first half, when it looked like Jacksonville would get blown out.  But he was a completely different quarterback while leading that comeback in the second half.  The Jaguars have been looking for a franchise QB for a while, and they've finally got one!

Of course, taking on Kansas City is a completely different proposition entirely.  The Chiefs are looking to get to their fifth straight AFC Championship Game, and they're well-rested after getting the bye.  Kansas City hasn't just been in this position before, they've won in a variety of ways in the Divisional Playoffs.  That experience is huge this time of year, and it's part of the reason we always see the Chiefs in this spot.  That's not to say Jacksonville can't win.  It'll just be a very difficult proposition.  The Jaguars will need to play an almost perfect game and hope the Chiefs make some mistakes.

Although, as we've seen throughout Andy Reid's tenure as head coach, the Chiefs rarely make mistakes in the playoffs.  Super Bowl LV is the only time they've ever been outplayed in a postseason game under Reid.  And it's doubtful they get outplayed here.  The mentor, Reid, beats his protege, Doug Pederson.  

Giants (10-7-1) at Eagles (14-3): Philadelphia-How about the NFC East!?  Two years ago, Washington won the division at 7-9.  This year, the division didn't just have three playoff teams, the three of them make up 75 percent of the NFC Divisional Playoff field!  The NFC East is definitely back!  And, with the Giants playing the Eagles this weekend, the division is guaranteed a berth in the NFC Championship Game for the first time since Philadelphia's Super Bowl run five years ago.

This is actually the Eagles' second consecutive home game against the Giants, who had a stopover in Minnesota in between.  I'm not sure how much we can take from that Week 18 meeting, either.  The Giants were already locked into the 6-seed, so they sat a lot of starters.  The Eagles needed to win that game to clinch the 1-seed, which they did.  And that week off was incredibly helpful for Jalen Hurts, who should be good to go after his shoulder strain.

I don't think you can really take much from that regular season finale.  You can take a lot from their first regular season meeting in early December, though.  The Eagles didn't just win that game at Met Life Stadium.  They dominated it, 48-22.  Yes, the Giants had a bad day that day, but it exposed the fact that Philadelphia is just a better team.  They show it again and secure a home NFC Championship Game.

Bengals (13-4) at Bills (14-3): Buffalo-Less than a month after the scary Damar Hamlin injury, the Bills and Bengals finally meet.  Only this time it's with a berth in the AFC Championship Game at stake.  And this time, the game is in Buffalo, which is a point of contention for the Bengals, who, for the second week in a row, have an issue with the site of their playoff game.  Except this time, I agree with them.

When the NFL came up with its playoff contingencies, they decided that a Bills-Chiefs AFC Championship will be held at a neutral site (Atlanta) because the Bills would've been the 1-seed had they both reached 14 regular season wins.  However, had the Bills-Bengals game been completed and Cincinnati won, both teams would've had the same record and the Bengals would've had the tiebreaker, meaning a playoff game would've been played in Cincinnati.  So how come the Divisional Playoff between the two isn't also being played at a neutral site?

And the fact that the game is in Buffalo is a HUGE advantage for the Bills.  If they were playing in Cincinnati or at a neutral site, I'd like the Bengals' chances a lot better.  But, with the Bills playing at home, in front of their fans, and the emotion of Hamlin being in the stadium (I hope he gets a moment with Tee Higgins beforehand), that's all too much to overcome.  Buffalo gets back to the AFC Championship Game.

Cowboys (13-5) at 49ers (14-4): Dallas-Cowboys-49ers in the playoffs!  Sure brings back some great memories, doesn't it?  And this one has the makings of another Dallas-San Francisco playoff classic.  Because they both dominated their Wild Card games last weekend, and it's hard to see either one losing if they play like that again.  But, of course, one of them has to.

Dallas played on Monday night (on the opposite side of the country) and got home early Tuesday morning.  San Francisco, meanwhile, played at home on Saturday.  Will those extra two days and the Cowboys' travel miles make a difference?  Will the magic of Brock Purdy that has led to this incredible winning streak result in the 49ers making a return trip to the NFC Championship Game?  Or will Dallas finally get back there for the first time since the 1995 season?

Perhaps the better question is will Dallas be able to get enough going against that stifiling 49er defense that allowed the fewest points in the league this season?  Purdy might be getting the headlines, but the defense is the real reason San Francisco has won 10 in a row.  As I've been saying all year, though, I think Dallas is one of the most complete teams in the NFL.  They showed it last week, when they finally won a road playoff game.  Now that they've gotten that monkey off their back, they win another and reach their first NFC Championship Game since the Aikman-Irvin-Emmitt era.

Last Week: 6-0
Overall: 170-105-2

Offseason Winners & Losers

We're just about a month from pitchers & catchers reporting to Spring Training and most of the big-name free agents have decided where they'll be playing in 2023.  As always, there are teams that go big and ultimately end up missing.  This year, that team was the San Francisco Giants.  Likewise, there's always that team that looks so good on paper because of all the guys they bring in, but ultimately underperforms those expectations.  We have no idea what team that'll be, but the Texas Rangers are probably a good bet.

For the most part, free agency played out somewhat predictably.  Aaron Judge re-signed with the Yankees (and was named captain), as most people thought he would, and Clayton Kershaw will continue to sign one-year deals with the Dodgers until he's ready to retire, so he doesn't even really count as a "free agent" anymore.  The Mets surprisingly lost Jacob deGrom, but immediately replaced him with Justin Verlander, who's coming off a Cy Young Award (although, it's definitely a risk to pay a combined $80 million to two 40-year-old starting pitchers).  And Willson Contreras to the Cardinals and Jose Abreu to the Astros were signings we all saw coming, too.

Then, of course, there's Carlos Correa, who had one of the strangest free agency sagas ever to play out.  He was all set to sign with the Giants and was even getting ready for the press conference when the deal fell through because he failed his physical, so he ended up agreeing with the Mets instead...only to fail their physical, too!  While it looked for a while like he'd rework his Mets contract and still end up in Queens, Correa ultimately stayed with Minnesota, which, I suspect, is the only team whose physical he was able to pass!

Among players, it's fairly obvious that Judge, who got $360 million over nine years to stay with the Yankees, was the biggest winner and Correa, after his three-team odyssey and significantly lower deal with the Twins, was the biggest loser.  But what about among the teams?  Here are who I think are the five biggest winners and five biggest losers...

Winners
Yankees: Re-signing Judge was their only priority heading into the offseason, and they were able to retain the Face of the Franchise for the next decade.  Once that box was checked, they moved on to upgrading the rotation, which they did with Carlos Rodon, who slots in as a solid No. 2 behind Gerrit Cole and gives the Yankees a much deeper rotation (Severino, Cortes and Montas all move back to the 3, 4 and 5 spots).  They still have some other areas they need to address, but losing Judge would've been disaster, so achieving their No. 1 goal and keeping their captain (who just happens to be the reigning MVP) in Pinstripes is enough to make their offseason a "win" regardless of what else they do.

Phillies: Even after their surprising World Series run, the Phillies knew they had to be active if they want to have sustained success, especially in the NL East.  Mission accomplished.  They filled their need at shortstop with one of the biggest free agents available in Trea Turner.  They also signed Taijuan Walker as a third solid starting pitcher to behind Nola and Wheeler.  Most importantly, they significantly upgraded their bullpen by trading for Gregory Soto and signing Craig Kimbrel.

Cubs: Am I expecting the Cubs to suddenly be good in 2023?  No.  But they'll be significantly less bad.  And it's not totally inconceivable to see them contending for a wild card.  They had money to spend, and they spent it, netting shortstop Dansby Swanson and starting pitcher Jameson Taillon.  They also made some low-risk, potentially high-reward signings in Cody Bellinger and Eric Hosmer, who'll platoon with another new addition, Trey Mancini, at first base.

Rangers: Last year, Texas went big on offense over the winter, signing both Corey Seager and Marcus Semien.  It wasn't enough.  Not only did they not compete with the Astros, they finished well under .500.  This offseason, they focused on pitching, completely rebuilding their rotation with three free agent starters--Jacob deGrom, Nathan Eovaldi and Andrew Heaney--plus Jake Odorizzi, who they got in a trade with the Braves.  Is it enough to catch Houston?  Probably not.  Does it have the potential to fail spectacularly?  Absolutely!  But, on paper at least, this new rotation should make Texas much better.

Red Sox: Boston's had an interesting offseason, and you could make a strong argument to place the Red Sox in either category.  But I ultimately settled on "winners," because I do think they're better than 2022's last-place squad.  They lost Xander Bogaerts, but they were bracing themselves for that, especially since they were prioritizing locking up Rafael Devers long term, which they did.  They were the ones who landed prized Japanese outfielder Masataka Yoshida, and Justin Turner is an upgrade at DH over J.D. Martinez.  Plus, they have an actual closer now in Kenley Jansen.

Losers
Giants: San Francisco can blame that reporter who tweeted out that they were about to sign Judge for losing out on him (if the Yankees didn't know San Francisco was willing to go to nine years, Hal Steinbrenner never would've personally gotten involved to seal the deal with Judge).  Then they missed out on Correa, too.  Two big swings.  Two misses.  (Although, I don't blame them for backing out on Correa if they did have legitimate concerns.)  So far, the biggest name they have been able to sign is Michael Conforto, their outfield consolation prize.

Dodgers: I know it's weird to see the Dodgers listed as an offseason "loser," but they're significantly weaker now than when the 2022 season ended.  They lost both Trea and Justin Turner as free agents, and they decided to cut ties with Cody Bellinger after a few disappointing seasons.  Meanwhile, they weren't in on many of the big names, with their only major additions being Noah Syndergaard and J.D. Martinez (who'd better not put his entire name on his jersey!).  Of course, one of the reasons they held off on free agent signings was because they didn't know what was going on with Trevor Bauer.  That situation's been resolved and, as expected, they cut ties with the pitcher.  However, they still have to pay him at least $27 million this season not to pitch for them.

Braves: The Braves' offseason has just been confusing!  They let Dansby Swanson leave as a free agent because they're confident enough in their young players that they think they can replace him with somebody they've already got.  That's fine.  It saved them some money.  And letting Adam Duvall leave also makes sense since they have like six starting outfielders.  But what I don't get is why they traded five players to Oakland for Sean Murphy and signed him to a long-term deal when they already had Travis d'Arnaud at catcher.  If you wanted to still have two starting catchers, why did you trade William Contreras then?

Angels: You could tell that the Angels are for sale.  Because they didn't do anything this offseason!  A team that has Mike Trout and Shohei Ohtani yet somehow consistently finishes below .500 made absolutely no effort to suck less, despite the fact that they're always in the mix for the biggest free agent names out there.  Their most significant free agent signing?  Starter Tyler Anderson, who came out of nowhere last season with the Dodgers and made the NL All*Star team.  Does he get them closer to competing with Houston (or even Texas)?  Not even close!

White Sox: Are the White Sox still capable of winning the AL Central?  Yes.  Is it likely?  No.  Jose Abreu was the one guy on this team they could consistently count on to provide power, but he's now in Houston making the Astros' lineup even scarier!  However, despite all of the available free agent first basemen, they didn't sign one!  Their only major addition is Andrew Benintendi, who's a good signing to play left field and bat leadoff (or second if Tim Anderson leads off), but I still don't know where their offense is coming from!  It'll be up to the pitching staff, which is solid but not spectacular.

A 2030 Problem Emerging

When the IOC revamped the Olympic bid process, it was intended to both streamline the process and make things easier.  More importantly, it was supposed to make things significantly cheaper by eliminating the costly (and lengthy) campaigns that, in the words of IOC President Thomas Bach, "resulted in too many losers."  Now, instead of cities competing against each other, the IOC gauges interest, picks a host, then works hand-in-hand with that city to put forth the best Olympic plan possible.

One of the other features of this new process is that Olympic host cities are no longer selected seven years ahead of time, which had been the standard.  Now, they can basically announce future hosts whenever they want.  Both the 2028 and 2032 Summer Olympics were announced 11 years in advance, and they're already talking about 2036.  On the flip side, they aren't bound by the seven-year timeframe, which is actually coming in handy right now.

The 2026 Winter Olympics were the last Games awarded under the old format.  Milano-Cortina was selected over Stockholm-Are at the IOC Session in 2019.  Under that timetable, the host for 2030 would be chosen later this year.  But it's looking more and more likely that they won't choose the 2030 host city until sometime before the Paris Games next year.  Because they're having trouble finding somebody willing to host them!

Choosing a Winter Olympic host will always be more of a challenge than finding a Summer Olympic host.  Not only are they limited to cold-weather areas in Europe, Asia and North America, they need to find a city that's both big enough to accommodate all of the international visitors and close enough to the mountains, where most (if not all) of the outdoor venues will be.  Plus, since the IOC doesn't want countries building costly new venues that may not get used after the Olympics, they're further limited by the fact that there simply aren't that many places with both a ski jump and a sliding track (and the ones that do would also need to be interested).

Still, the IOC thought they would have three solid options to choose from for 2030, all of which have hosted Winter Olympics before--Sapporo, Japan (1972); Salt Lake City (2002); and Vancouver (2010).  Salt Lake City and Vancouver, especially, would use many of the same venues that were used when they hosted fairly recently (and are now the primary U.S. and Canadian winter sports training centers).  And Sapporo, of course, hosted the race walks and marathons at the Tokyo Games.

Vancouver put together a preliminary bid, but, in October, the BC government decided not to support it because of the proposed cost.  As a result, the bid was withdrawn, leaving just Sapporo and Salt Lake City.  And, with LA hosting in 2028, many assumed that meant Sapporo 2030.

Sapporo had initially considered a bid for 2026, but decided not to since it was clear that the IOC wanted to go back to Europe and wasn't keen on a third straight Winter Olympics in Asia.  Most people figured that if Tokyo 2020 went well, that would put Sapporo in prime position for 2030.  This was, of course, before the 2020 Games were delayed a year (and before Sapporo ended up hosting some events at those Olympics), but Sapporo was still the first official bidder for 2030.

However, the bid, which is almost certainly the preferred choice, has hit a snag.  With the cost overruns related to the Tokyo postponement, there has been an ongoing investigation in Japan regarding bribery and corruption allegations.  As a result, public support for Sapporo has gone from high to lukewarm and organizers were forced to admit it was "difficult to keep fostering momentum."  So, they were left with very little choice other than putting the bid on hold.  They were very clear that the bid wasn't being cancelled, though.

That may be the reason why the IOC has decided to delay its 2030 announcement.  Because there's no question Sapporo would be their preferred site for 2030.  And they're gonna do everything they can to make sure Sapporo stays in the mix.  Because their only other option is Salt Lake City, which is more of a last resort.

Salt Lake City's organizers have even said they'd prefer 2034.  The USOPC has indicated the same thing.  And the reason is pretty obvious.  LA 2028.  That's what I've been saying all along too!  LA 2028 will have 11 years of promotion and build up.  Salt Lake 2030 would get a grand total of a year and half after those Olympics are over!  That's simply not enough time.

Yes, NBC and the USOPC could (and probably would) bundle some of their marketing for 2028 and 2030 should it happen.  But the point remains.  It's not ideal for anybody, and Salt Lake City would certainly get the short end of the stick.  The IOC knows that, too.  Which is why I think Salt Lake 2034 is also their preference.

If they were left with no other option, would the IOC hesitate to announce Salt Lake City as the host for 2030?  Absolutely not!  Salt Lake City delivered a great Winter Olympics (I'd argue the best ever) in 2002 and would certainly be up to the task again.  But that option is also seen as a bit of a last resort.  Which is why the IOC is delaying the decision for 2030, hoping Sapporo changes its mind.

This is the third straight Winter Olympics where the IOC is having trouble finding a host.  In 2022, they were left with Beijing and Almaty, Kazakhstan as the only options.  When they said they wanted to go back to a "more traditional" European host in 2026, it was obvious to everyone that Oslo's bid was their preference.  And they were NOT happy when Oslo withdrew, leaving them with just the bids from Italy and Sweden.  The new process was supposed to make things easier, but it obviously hasn't, leaving them with the situation they're currently facing.

All of which amounts to a larger problem that the IOC knows it needs to address.  There have even been suggestions that they designate three or four Winter Olympic hosts and simply rotate between them.  Climate change is also a concern, especially after a study released just before Beijing 2022 suggesting that Sapporo is the only previous Winter Olympic host that would still be able to at the end of the century.

Whether any of that happens is a long-term issue that the IOC must deal with.  It won't have an impact on 2030.  The IOC would prefer Sapporo, so it's waiting.  If Sapporo's a no-go, then Salt Lake City is the backup plan.  And if Sapporo does end up hosting in 2030, Salt Lake City will be the hands-on favorite for 2034 (they've ruled out a double-awarding, but it wouldn't surprise me if they change their minds about that).

What we do know for certain, however, is that there will be a Winter Olympics in 2030.  Whether they're in Sapporo or Salt Lake City or somewhere else.  Just like we know there'll be a Winter Oympics in 2034.  And 2038.  And 2042, etc., etc.  They'll find somebody to host, even if it's reluctantly.  And even if it's not ideal.

Novak's Back at the Aussie Open

Heading into last year's Australian Open, everything was overshadowed by the Novak Djokovic drama.  The saga over whether the unvaccinated Djokovic would be allowed to even enter the country dominated the headlines throughout the leadup.  Djokovic, of course, ended up being deported the day before the tournament began, which also included a three-year ban on entering Australia.

That ban was later rescinded when Australia changed its travel restrictions.  Foreigners are no longer required to be vaccinated and no longer have to quarantine.  So, since Djokovic would otherwise be able to travel to Australia now, and since they proved their point, his three-year deportation was overturned and he was allowed to enter this year's tournament, where he will be the favorite.

Djokovic missing last year's tournament had huge repercussions all season, too.  He was the defending champion, so he lost 2000 points on his ranking.  He won Wimbledon, but Wimbledon's punishment for not allowing Russian players to enter was having no points awarded, so he got 0 points there despite winning.  And he also had to miss the US Open as an unvaccinated foreigner, so no points there either. 

So, with no points in three of the four Grand Slams in 2022, Djokovic's ranking has dropped all the way to No. 5.  But, should he extend his record with a 10th Australian Open title, Djokovic goes right back to No. 1.  The current No. 1, Carlos Alcaraz, is injured, so Djokovic is the No. 4 seed, which meant he could've been drawn into either side of the bracket, including a potential semifinal against Rafael Nadal.  Fortunately, Djokovic and Nadal ended up on opposite sides, so they can only meet in the final.

Had Djokovic played last year, the two of them would've battled it out to become the all-time record-holder with 21 Grand Slam titles.  With Djokovic absent, it was Nadal who got to No. 21 first, overcoming a two-set deficit against Daniil Medvedev in the final to win his first Australian Open title in 13 years.  (Nadal, by the way, lost a grand total of one Grand Slam match in 2022...his walkover in the Wimbledon semifinals doesn't count.)

With the two of them on opposite sides of the draw, it's very easy to envision them meeting in the final (where Nadal would either increase his lead to 23-21 or Djokovic would even it up at 22-22).  And they're the two clear favorites.  As they should be.  They've combined to win 11 of the last 15 Australian Opens, after all.  So, if you're looking for contenders, you don't really need to go beyond those two.

While I may think it's a fool's errand to look for other "favorites," there still needs to be two other semifinalists.  Daniil Medvedev, who's made the last two finals, is unfortunately in same quarter as Nadal.  Which obviously means one of them can't make the semifinals.  Alexander Zverev, meanwhile, is back.  The Tokyo Olympic gold medalist suffered a gruesome ankle injury against Nadal in the French Open semifinals last year and missed the rest of the season.  He might be the best hardcourt player in the world, so if anybody outside of the Big Two is gonna break through, he'd be my choice.

Ultimately, though, I do think it'll come down to the two big dogs.  They've met in the Australian Open final twice before, with Djokovic winning both times (including an epic in 2012).  I don't see 2023 being any different.  Much like Roland Garros is Nadal's domain, Melbourne Park is Djokovic's.  He makes it 10-for-10 in finals.

On the women's side, meanwhile, it's wide open.  There are a grand total of two former champions in the field--Victoria Azarenka and Sofia Kenin--and they're playing each other in the first round!  So, it seems likely that the Australian Open tradition of at least one surprise woman making a deep run will continue.

Last year, that surprising run was made by Danielle Collins, who went all the way to the final as the No. 27 seed.  In the semifinals, she crushed Iga Swiatek, who would go on to win the French and US Opens and become the clear No. 1 in the world, 6-4, 6-1, before losing to Ash Barty in the final.  Collins and Swiatek would meet each other in the fourth round this year, and the winner should be the favorite to reach the final on the top half of the draw.

Let me go back to last year and Ash Barty for a second, because that story needs to be told.  Barty entered the tournament as No. 1 in the world and had a chance to become the first hometown Australian Open women's champion since 1978.  She did just that, only to abruptly retire from the sport at the age of 25 two months later as the active No. 1, completely upending the rankings.

Barty's not the only one missing.  Two-time Australian Open champ Naomi Osaka announced just a week ago that she's pregnant and will miss the entire season.  This is also the first Grand Slam since Serena's retirement.  Little did we know, that when she won the 2017 title, her record seventh, while pregnant, it would be the last time she lifted a Grand Slam trophy.  However, with those three missing, it offers a chance for some new blood to make their marks.

The rankings upheaval appears to have settled a little bit.  Swiatek has established herself as a clear No. 1, and Ons Jabeur has made the last two Grand Slam finals, so her status as No. 2 is also pretty clear.  The rest of it, though, is still a little in flux.  Jessica Pegula, the daughter of the Bills/Sabres owners, is No. 3 and Caroline Garcia, who won the WTA Tour championship last year, is No. 4.  Neither of them has ever made a Grand Slam final.  Will that change here?

There are two other women who I can see potentially having their Grand Slam breakthrough here.  The first is Belinda Bencic, the Tokyo Olympic champion, who's never made it past the fourth round at any Grand Slam other than the US Open.  The other is No. 5 Aryna Sabalenka.  She's made the last two US Open semifinals and been to the fourth round here the last two times.  Sabalenka, Bencic and Jabeur are all in the same quarter, though.

I see Jabeur coming out of that very competitive quarter, while Garcia's path to the semifinals is actually pretty smooth.  That winner of that Swiatek-Collins fourth-round matchup should also win the quarterfinal, and I see Pegula making her maiden Grand Slam semifinal.  Although, we all know how good a hardcourt player Azarenka is, so that quarterfinal won't be easy.

In the end, though, I see Ons Jabuer making history.  She's already the highest-ranked African and Arab woman ever, as well as the first to make a Grand Slam final, all of which happened in the last half of 2022.  In 2023, she takes it all a step further and becomes the first-ever African and Arab Grand Slam champion.

My 2022-23 NFL Picks (Wild Card)

We've got some new blood in this season's NFL playoffs.  No Packers.  No Steelers.  No Patriots.  Instead, we've got the Giants, Dolphins and Jaguars.  And it's kind of refreshing.  I love seeing somebody other than just the usual suspects.  It's part of what made Cincinnati's run last season so fun.  Although, we've still got some of the usual suspects, too.  And those are probably the teams that'll be in the mix at the end.

But first we've got Season 3 of Super Wild Card Weekend.  There are three intradivision matchups among the six games, including Ravens-Bengals in Cincinnati for the second week in a row.  And the Giants visited Minnesota on Christmas Eve, so that's a rematch of a fairly recent game, as well.  In fact, all six matchups are rematches of regular season contests.

Seahawks (9-8) at 49ers (13-4): San Francisco-The 49ers are perhaps the hottest team in the league.  They enter the playoffs on a 10-game winning streak, and they've been doing it with a rookie quarterback.  Combine that with San Francisco's top-ranked defense, and the Seahawks have a very tall order ahead of them.  Although, for Seattle, just making the playoffs this season was a massive achievement.

When the Seahawks parted ways with Russell Wilson over the offseason, everyone just assumed they were starting a rebuild.  Little did we know that Geno Smith wouldn't just outperform Wilson, he'd turn into a franchise quarterback!  (One of the many the Jets let get away.)  Their impressive 2022 run will end on the home field of their division rivals, though.  Seattle's nowhere near as good as San Francisco.  

Chargers (10-7) at Jaguars (9-8): Jacksonville-From back-to-back No. 1 overall picks to an AFC South title.  I know he probably won't win, but Doug Pederson should certainly be in the conversation for Coach of the Year!  I don't think the Jaguars are done yet, either.  This is a team that was 4-8 at the start of December, only to end the regular season with five straight wins to take the division.  And how awesome was it that they clinched it with a fumble recovery touchdown?

That crowd's gonna be rocking for the Jaguars' first home playoff game in five years!  And it comes against a team they beat on the road in Week 3.  That 38-10 victory over the Chargers at SoFi Stadium was perhaps Jacksonville's most impressive performance of the season.  This one won't be a blowout, but with the Jaguars on a roll and the Chargers missing two big offensive weapons, I'm not sure how they score against that Jacksonville defense.

Dolphins (9-8) at Bills (13-3): Buffalo-Congratulations to the Dolphins on returning to the playoffs!  Miami was sitting pretty for a while before going on that five-game losing streak towards the end of the season.  The Dolphins took care of business against the Jets last week, though, and got the help they needed, including a Bills win over the Patriots, to grab the AFC's last wild card.  Unfortunately for them, though, it means a trip north to face their division rivals.

Even before everything with Damar Hamlin happened, Buffalo was a legitimate Super Bowl contender.  Now that they've got the extra motivation, there really could be no stopping them on the Road to Arizona!  Yes, I think they're THAT good!  Impressive job by Miami to make the playoffs, but the Dolphins' stay will be short.  The Bills take care of business.

Giants (9-7-1) at Vikings (13-4): Giants-Outside of getting blown out by Dallas and one blowout each way against Green Bay, virtually every one of the Vikings' games this season has been decided by one score.  Minnesota's scoring margin for the season, in fact, is -3.  Yet they won 13 games and the NFC North going away.  So, they're clearly comfortable in close games.  Which is exactly what you should expect them to play again here.

Not all of those close wins have been easy, though.  Take Christmas Eve for example.  The Vikings only won because of a 60-yard field goal as time expired.  The Giants hung with them.  And I think they will again.  Minnesota's strength is its offense, which will be countered by the Giants' defense.  Which makes Saquon Barkley the X-factor in his first career postseason game.  I know I've been high on the Vikings all season, but I smell an upset here.  That game on Christmas Eve was too recent and too encouraging for me to not take the Giants.

Ravens (10-7) at Bengals (12-4): Cincinnati-I was right that they'd pick Baltimore-Cincinnati for the Sunday night game.  I was just off by a week!  And I'm sure glad it didn't come down to a coin toss between these two.  That, to me, was the most ridiculous thing about the Bengals' complaining about that possibility after the NFL gifted them a division title.

Anyway, this one has the potential to be very similar to last week, when Cincinnati really dominated the game.  The Ravens didn't have Lamar Jackson or Tyler Huntley, though, so if they get one of their top two quarterbacks back, they should be able to show a little more offensively.  Problem is, even with either Jackson or Huntley under center, I'm not sure they have enough.  Especially since the game's in Cincinnati.  The score won't be the same as last week, but the result will.

Cowboys (12-5) at Buccaneers (8-9): Dallas-They saved the best for last!  We've known for weeks that the NFC 4-5 game would likely be Cowboys-Bucs, but I think most people were expecting Sunday night instead of Monday night.  And this isn't just the best matchup of the weekend, it looks like it could easily be the most competitive.

On paper, it shouldn't be.  Dallas is one of the best teams in football and Tampa Bay is under .500 overall.  But, the Bucs have Tom Brady.  And they're playing at home.  Plus, when these two met in Dallas to start the season, it was Tampa Bay that won.  There's a big difference between the middle of September and the middle of January, though.  All season, I've been convinced that Dallas will either go on a deep playoff run or lose their Wild Card Game.  I guess we'll find out which it is.  I think it'll be Option A, though.

Last Week: 12-4
Overall: 164-105-2

More NFL/College Schedule Problems Coming

When the NFL added a 17th game to the schedule last season, it didn't just push the Super Bowl back a week into the middle of February.  It created all sorts of additional schedule issues now that, instead of the final games of the season, New Year's weekend is now a regular NFL week, complete with Thursday and Monday night games.  We saw those issues on full display this season, and they're only gonna get worse.

To be fair, the NFL's decision to add a seventh playoff team in each conference two years ago also led to quirky scheduling.  Since they didn't make that decision until the last minute, the schedule for Wild Card Weekend was already set, with the CFP National Championship in its traditional Monday night slot.  As a result, the only way for the NFL to play six games in a weekend was to do tripleheaders on both Saturday and Sunday before introducing the Monday night Wild Card Game last year.

This season, it was the bowl games that had to be adjusted because of the NFL.  There's a Monday night game scheduled in Week 17 now (that fateful Bills-Bengals game), which was played after the Rose Bowl.  Which meant the Sugar Bowl had to be moved from its traditional post-Rose Bowl spot to noon on New Year's Eve, before the two CFP semifinals.

Next season, the exact same problem will exist.  Except it'll be further complicated by the fact that the Rose and Sugar Bowls are the CFP semifinals, so rescheduling the Sugar Bowl isn't possible.  Although, since New Year's Eve is Saturday, not Sunday, that probably means the "Monday" night game will be moved to Saturday night...which is when there's typically an NFL Network game.

NBC, meanwhile, will have its own problems with both Christmas Eve AND New Year's Eve being Sundays.  Sunday Night Football is the highest-rated show on television, but "It's A Wonderful Life" has been a staple of Christmas Eve for years.  They obviously can't show both.  My guess is that we'll get either a double- or tripleheader on Christmas Day, with the NBC game preceding Monday Night Football (they've done this before...I remember when NBC first got the NFL back, Carrie Underwood was dating Tony Romo and the Cowboys played the Eagles at like 5:00 on Christmas in the "Sunday" night game).

They've also struck gold with their Miley Cyrus New Year's Eve special, but Miley may have to take a year off in 2023-24.  Because I don't see them rescheduling Sunday Night Football two weeks in a row, especially if they end up moving the New Year's Day Monday night game to Saturday, which seems likely.  As for how they'll figure out Saturday games on NFL Network, I have no idea.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a Christmas Eve Sunday night game on NFL Network, though.

Moving forward, though, it won't just the years when Christmas and New Year's fall on the weekend that cause a problem.  Once the College Football Playoff expands to 12 teams for the 2024 season, the scheduling issues will continue well into January.  And it'll be very interesting to see how they plan on addressing them.

The current schedule for the College Football Playoff actually works perfectly.  The semifinals are either on New Year's Day if they're the Rose and Sugar Bowls or the Saturday before if not.  Then the National Championship Game is the following Monday, the day after the NFL regular season ends, in the Monday Night Football timeslot that the NFL isn't using.

However, when the CFP expands, the plan is to have the first-round games on campus the week before Christmas with the four non-semifinal New Year's Six games hosting the quarterfinals on or around New Year's Day.  That pushes the two semifinals and Championship Game back a week.  My guess is they'll have the Championship Game on Martin Luther King Day.  But the semifinals are the real issue.

Whether New Year's falls on the weekend or not, scheduling the semifinals for a Saturday (which is what seems to be the most likely scenario) will put them head-to-head against significant NFL games.  Last year, they started giving ESPN/ABC a Saturday doubleheader in Week 18.  ESPN also broadcasts the CFP.  Again, that doesn't work.

That's actually not nearly as bad as the possible scheduling nightmare when New Year's is NOT on the weekend.  Then, Saturday semifinals would be on Wild Card Weekend!  ESPN doesn't have a Saturday game during Wild Card Weekend, but that scenario obviously wouldn't work for either the NFL or the CFP.  Let alone fans who want to watch both!  (Although, I'm sure sports bars would love it!)

None of that even takes into consideration the possible issues with stadium availability.  Five of the six CFP bowls are played in NFL stadiums.  Scheduling around the bowl games is easy enough in the regular season (the Falcons even had a home game 12 hours after the Georgia-Ohio State semifinal ended).  In the playoffs, though?  That could cause some major problems!

It's not crazy to imagine the Cowboys hosting a Wild Card Game the same year the Cotton Bowl is a semifinal.  Or the Saints and the Sugar Bowl.  In fact, it seems likely that there'll be an NFL/College Football Playoff stadium conflict at some point.  Fortunately, three of the five stadiums in question have turf fields (which would still require repainting the end zones), but what if it happens in Miami or Arizona?  What would the field quality be like after playing two playoff games on grass with such a short turnaround?

I'm sure they'll find a way to figure all of this out.  They've got more than a year to do it, after all.  I'm just not sure how.  I can't help but think, though, that the whole thing wouldn't be an issue at all had the NFL not added a 17th game and the CFP not expanded from four to 12.

My 2022-23 NFL Picks (Week 18)

Scary scene in Cincinnati on Monday night!  I don't blame them one bit for not wanting to continue after that, and the most important thing is that it looks like Damar Hamlin is going to be OK.  While I completely understand the decision to declare the game a "no contest," it definitely creates a unique AFC playoff situation.  There was no good solution in this unprecedented situation, and what they ultimately decided does seem to be the least-bad option.

Meanwhile, there are Jacksonville Jaguars fans, who are just ridiculous.  Jaguars fans (who root for a team that's been terrible for the better part of 15 years) are upset that their game against the Titans isn't on Sunday Night Football.  Really?  You're upset that your division-deciding nationally-televised game is on Saturday night instead of Sunday night?  C'mon!  It could've been the fourth regional 1:00 game on CBS like every other Jaguars game.  (Side note: The only other option for Sunday night besides Lions-Packers was Bengals-Ravens, which COULDN'T be on Saturday since Cincinnati's coming off a Monday night game.)

Chiefs (13-3) at Raiders (6-10): Kansas City-Kansas City was actually the biggest beneficiary of the Bills-Bengals no contest.  Because, despite losing to both Buffalo and Cincinnati, all the Chiefs need to do to be the 1-seed and get the bye is beat the Raiders.  Of course, the AFC Championship Game will now be at a neutral site if it's Kansas City against either one of those teams, but the Chiefs getting the bye as the only team capable of reaching 14 wins is huge.  And they should be able to do it.

Titans (7-9) at Jaguars (8-8): Jacksonville-I actually want to see the Jaguars win here.  It'd be a great story, especially considering how much of a mess they were last season with the whole Urban Meyer fiasco.  And when you consider they were 4-8 and in third place after getting smacked by the Lions in Week 13.  The Titans were in first place at 7-5 then.  So, yeah, they've been going in opposite ways, which included the Jaguars winning the first matchup between these two in Nashville.  They'll complete the season sweep and host a playoff game as the AFC South champs.

Buccaneers (8-8) at Falcons (6-10): Tampa Bay-Tampa Bay is locked into the No. 4 seed, so I wonder how much we'll see of their starters in the regular season finale.  Although, their offense has been so inconsistent, that it might not be a bad idea for them to play.  It has looked like they've finally started to click in the last two games, just in time for playoff Brady to show up.  Mostly, I just want the Bucs to win so that we don't have a sub-.500 division winner (it actually looked for a while like we certainly would get from one of the Souths, but, fortunately, we might not get one from either).

Patriots (8-8) at Bills (12-3): Buffalo-This is so much more than a football game for the Bills.  They're playing for their brother.  And the outpouring of love for Damar Hamlin all week has been truly heartwarming!  There's only one way that such an emotional week can end.  (As I write this, I'm reminded of the Bills-Patriots game I went to in 2007 where there was a surprise video message from Kevin Everett before the game...New England won 56-10 in the 16-0 season.)  Buffalo will win and wrap up the 2-seed in the AFC.

Vikings (12-4) at Bears (3-13): Minnesota-Minnesota will go into the playoffs as the NFC North champions with a negative scoring margin for the season.  The Vikings have won a bunch of close games and gotten blown out twice, including last week at Lambeau.  Now that they know they can't be No. 1, do they have a preference between 2 and 3?  If they're No. 2, they could get the Packers again.  If they're No. 3, it's a Giants team that they beat on a 61-yard field goal on Christmas Eve.  Regardless of who they play, they'll get a warmup against a terrible Bears team.

Ravens (10-6) at Bengals (11-4): Cincinnati-Baltimore is the one team that really got screwed by the AFC's playoff solution.  Because it's now impossible for the Ravens to win the AFC North.  That would've been impossible anyway had the Bengals won the Bills game, but now Baltimore can win this game to finish off a season sweep of Cincinnati and still finish second by a half-game.  And the Bengals are upset that, should they face each other again next week, the home team could be decided by a coin flip.  Of course, if Cincinnati wins, that won't be an issue.

Texans (2-13-1) at Colts (4-11-1): Indianapolis-When these two met in Week 1 in Houston, it was a very uninspiring 20-20 tie.  Which was really a sign of things to come for both teams.  They both played well against the Chiefs (Indianapolis actually beat them), but that's about the extent of the highlights for this season.  Houston clinches the No. 1 pick with a loss.

Jets (7-9) at Dolphins (8-8): Miami-So...the Jets are on FOX and the Giants are on CBS this week!  Gotta love cross-flexing!  Anyway, Miami, despite riding a five-game losing streak, still has a very realistic shot at the playoffs.  The Dolphins are in with a win and a Patriots loss.  Seeing as New England is in Buffalo, both of those things are very doable.  Miami's quarterback situation is...interesting.  But so is the Jets'!  At the start of December, it wouldn't have seemed so crazy to say the Dolphins will make the playoffs.  And that'll be exactly what happens, as they secure the 7-seed in the AFC.

Panthers (6-10) at Saints (7-9): Carolina-Even though the Panthers were really bad for most of the season, they still showed a lot of promise.  And I'll be very interested to see what they do both at coach and quarterback moving forward.  I also want to know what the Saints will do.  Especially since New Orleans finished with a much better record than I expected this season.  Will they both end up 7-10?  Or will the Saints end up 8-9?  I think it'll be Option A.  For some reason, I think Carolina wins.

Browns (7-9) at Steelers (8-8): Pittsburgh-Never count out the Pittsburgh Steelers, man!  Just when we thought they were out of it, they went on a run and are actually still alive for the final AFC wild card.  Of course, they're third in line, so it'll require a win and losses by both New England and Miami, but it's not impossible.  Will both of those other things happen?  Probably not.  (I don't see the Jets beating the Dolphins.)  But they'll do their part, and Mike Tomlin will continue his remarkable streak of never having a losing season in 16 years as Steelers coach.

Chargers (10-6) at Broncos (4-12): Chargers-Will Sean Payton be coaching the Broncos next season?  How long until they hire him?  I guess it won't be long until we find out the answer to either of those questions.  But first, they have to wrap up their seventh straight losing season since winning Super Bowl 50.  The Chargers, on the other hand, are headed to the playoffs for the first time in four years.  And they'll head into the postseason on a five-game roll.

Giants (9-6-1) at Eagles (13-3): Philadelphia-Thanks to an ill-timed two-game losing streak, Philadelphia hasn't clinched the division or the 1-seed yet.  Which means they have to play everybody (except the injured Jalen Hurts) against the Giants, who are locked into the 6-seed.  That's great news for the Eagles, who manhandled the Giants 48-22 a month ago.  They probably won't do that again.  But, with this game meaning nothing for a Giants team that's traveling next week no matter what, they do get the win and the 1-seed.

Cardinals (4-12) at 49ers (12-4): San Francisco-The Cardinals are one of those teams that can't wait for the season to be over.  And, after the 2022-23 campaign mercifully comes to its end, Kliff Kingsbury's time as Arizona's head coach will almost certainly be done, as well.  San Francisco, meanwhile, moved up to the 2-seed after Minnesota lost last week.  Now, they've even got a shot to move up to No. 1 if they win and the Eagles lose.  The first part (them winning) won't be a problem.

Rams (5-11) at Seahawks (8-8): Seattle-There will be a very interested group of Seattle Seahawks watching Sunday Night Football intently.  Just like Detroit will be keeping an eye on this game rooting pretty hard for the Rams.  Because wins by the Seahawks and Lions puts Seattle in the playoffs.  I don't think anybody was saying about either of those teams at the start of the season.  The team people expected to enter this game looking to clinch a playoff spot was the defending champion Rams.  That's obviously not gonna happen!  Seattle wins and waits.

Cowboys (12-4) at Commanders (7-8-1): Dallas-Poor Ron Rivera.  He had no idea that Washington could be eliminated last week.  Yet that's exactly what happened.  And, now that they are out of it, the Commanders will turn to a rookie quarterback in the season finale.  I'm very curious to see how Dallas approaches this game.  They can still technically be the 1-seed if they win and the Eagles lose, but they know it's far more likely they go to Tampa next week.  So, what do they do?  It really could depend on how things are going in Philadelphia.  Either way, I think Dallas takes care of business in DC.

Lions (8-8) at Packers (8-8): Detroit-Aaron Freakin' Rodgers!  You just can't get rid of that guy!  A few weeks ago, when he insisted the Packers were still alive, nobody believed him.  Yet, here we are, in Week 18, and Green Bay has a win-and-in scenario in Game 272 (or is it Game 271?).  It really is incredible to think about.  It's also crazy that the Lions are in this position!  I'd love to see Detroit get that last playoff berth, but I, sadly, don't see that happening.  After the Seahawks win, they'll be playing just to keep the Packers out.

Last Week: 11-4
Overall: 152-101-2

A "Normal" Year Ahead?

I don't know about you, but I'm looking forward to a "normal" sports year.  We haven't had one since 2019.  Everything got screwed up in 2020, we were playing catch up in 2021, and things kinda sorta started to get back on schedule in 2022.  Finally, in 2023, it looks like things will finally get back to "normal" for the first time in four years.

Of course, there is one additional event that wouldn't have been on the 2023 calendar had COVID not wreaked havoc on all of our lives three years ago.  The World Baseball Classic was originally scheduled for 2021, but was postponed until this March, when the United States will finally get the chance to defend its title six years after winning the 2017 tournament.  And the American team should be STACKED!

Otherwise, though, all of the events that were originally supposed to be this year will be.  That means World Championships in Olympic sports for the second consecutive summer and your traditional pre-Olympic multisport events (none of which were actually affected since they were all last held in 2019).  And World Cups in women's soccer and men's basketball.

So, beyond the World Baseball Classic, what are some of those events we have to look forward to in 2023?  Well, I already mentioned it, so I might as well start with the Women's World Cup.  This will be the biggest Women's World Cup ever, as 32 teams will head to Australia and New Zealand in July and August.  The U.S. Women's National Team will be going for its third straight title.

The U.S. men's basketball team, meanwhile, will get a chance to atone for its miserable seventh-place performance in 2019 at the Basketball World Cup in the Philippines, Japan and Indonesia.  Who'll make up the team is always the big question, but the tournament is also the primary qualifier for the Paris Olympics.  You know that'll be the priority, but heading into the Olympics as World Cup champions (especially after the disappointment of 2019) would make them the unquestioned favorites in Paris.

Team USA will also head to Santiago, Chile in October for the Pan Am Games.  Granted, the Pan Am Games are much bigger in the rest of the Americas than they are here, especially since they'll be taking place in October, but they're still important for Olympic qualifying in a number of sports.

One of the reasons the Pan Am Games aren't as big in the U.S. is because the top athletes in the marquee sports don't participate.  They, instead, will be at the World Championships, which are being held for the second consecutive year after the 2021 editions were pushed back when the Olympics were delayed.  And these are the pre-Olympic Worlds, with track & field set for Budapest, swimming in Japan, and beach volleyball heading to Mexico.

This year's hockey World Championships were supposed to be in Russia.  Except Russia is still banned from international sports (their doping suspension is over, but they're still on the outs because of the Ukraine invasion), so the tournament was moved to Latvia and Finland.

Back on home soil, this'll be the first season under Major League Baseball's new schedule format.  For the first time, every team will play at least one series against each of the other 29 teams.  This is something some owners have wanted for years, and it actually is a pretty cool change.  We'll also get the return of the London Series, with the Cubs and Cardinals doing the honors.  This year's All*Star Game, meanwhile, is in Seattle.

Another thing that 2023 will bring us is another attempt at the XFL.  XFL 3.0 relaunches in February and will give us a second spring football league that no one asked for.  Yep, that's right.  Two spring football leagues.  As soon as the XFL season is done, it's season two of USFL 2.0!  So, there'll be plenty of mediocre "professional" football all spring, starting right after the Super Bowl and running straight through to the Fourth of July.

In the league where the football is actually of good quality, for the first time in three years, the Super Bowl won't be won by the home team.  While the NFL will crown its champion in Phoenix, Georgia and TCU will play for the college National Championship at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, site of last year's Rams home Super Bowl triumph.  The Final Fours, meanwhile, are both headed to Texas.  Houston for the men, Dallas for the women.  The Men's Frozen Four, however, will be in a very unfrozen location.  Tampa.

We'll also see some big changes on the college sports front in 2023.  Specifically, we'll see the Big 12's expansion from 10 to 14 members.  Texas and Oklahoma aren't leaving for the SEC until July 1, 2025, so they'll spend two years in the expanded Big 12, which will include BYU, Cincinnati, Houston and Central Florida.  I'm especially excited for BYU, Cincinnati and Houston.  They're great fits, and I think the Big 12 is going to be a very, very good conference with them in the fold.

How is the golf thing going to unfold?  I ask this because it's a Ryder Cup year.  The U.S. is the defending champions after that dominant effort in 2021, but hasn't won a Ryder Cup in Europe since 1993.  That's 30 years!  And who'll be on the team?  Because I don't think this LIV/PGA rift is getting solved anytime soon, and Ryder Cup points are based on PGA results, so some of the best players are currently not eligible for the team (unless they change the qualifying procedure).

That's just a sampling of what 2023 has in store for us.  Above all, 2023 should be the year when sports return to "normal."  The calendar will be back on track, events will go back to when we expect them to take place, and fans will pack the stands once again.  Who would've thought the idea of getting back to normal would be so nice?!

The Worst Kind of Soccer Mom

We should've known that there was more to the Gio Reyna drama during the World Cup.  As it turns out, that was just the tip of the iceberg.  The whole situation has gotten a whole lot messier!  And I'm not entirely sure how this ends without making U.S. Soccer look incredibly bad!

During the World Cup, a report came out about an "unnamed U.S. player" who wasn't meeting the coaching staff's expectations, specifically with his lack of effort in training camp and the warm-up game against a Qatari club.  There was even talk about sending him home.  It was eventually confirmed that said player was Gio Reyna, which probably partly explains Reyna's lack of playing time in the World Cup.

In my objective, outsider's opinion, I have absolutely no issue with the way Reyna's situation was handled.  If he's the only player on the team not putting in the proper effort, call him out for it.  Especially when he was chosen for the roster while other incredibly talented players like Ricardo Pepi and Jordan Pefok were left at home.  Also, Gio Reyna is 20, so the amount of playing time he got at the World Cup was probably going to limited regardless.  Does anybody seriously think he'd start over Christian Pulisic or Timothy Weah (or even Josh Sargent)?

Gio wasn't the only Reyna who was unhappy about his lack of playing time.  His father, Claudio, who was the U.S. captain at the 2006 World Cup, has had a bad relationship with U.S. Head Coach Gregg Berhalter for quite a few years now, so it's no surprise that he was also critical.  What I didn't expect, though, was that Reyna's mother would do something that puts all of those stereotypical soccer moms to shame!

Berhalter's contract expired on New Year's Eve and is yet to be renewed.  The reason is because of a complaint made against him to U.S. Soccer Sporting Director Earnie Stewart on Dec. 11, shortly after the team returned home from the World Cup.  In a statement posted on Twitter, Berhalter mentioned having a confrontation with a "third party," who threatened to "end him" with information that would "take him down."  That third party was Danielle Reyna.

The information in question is regarding a domestic violence incident between Berhalter and his now wife in 1991.  The details are obviously limited and entirely based on hearsay, but the basics are that they had an argument at a bar that became physical, and he kicked her in the legs.  The authorities were never called and the couple later reconciled.  Berhalter admitted to all of this in his account.

Danielle Reyna has a different view of what happened.  She was Rosalind Berhalter's roommate at the time and claims that the abuse and trauma Rosalind suffered (and she helped her get through) were much worse than Gregg Berhalter described.  Which is entirely possible.  I'm not saying her account is wrong.  However, that's not what this is about.

There's one reason and one reason only why Danielle Reyna decided now is the time to bring up something that happened more than 30 years ago.  It's a petty act of revenge.  She's unhappy with the way that someone she considered a friend treated her little boy.  This isn't me saying that.  She's basically admitted it!  And she's proud of herself for it!

This is exactly what you'd expect from a disgruntled parent who goes to the principal because they think their kid should be a varsity starter when, in reality, they're barely good enough to even make the JV team.  Said disgruntled parent then goes out of their way to make the coach look bad, either through an accusation or something else.  That's, 100 percent, the same thing that's happening here.

Make no mistake, this isn't about Gregg Berhalter at all.  This is entirely about Gio Reyna.  Had the big, bad coach not been mean to him, Mommy wouldn't be upset and wouldn't have said anything.  And Berhalter would already have a contract extension instead of having to deal with an internal investigation that threatens his entire career.

I'm not exaggerating by saying that, either.  Danielle Reyna has point blank said it herself: "I thought it was especially unfair that Gio, who had apologized for acting immaturely about his playing time, was still being dragged through the mud when Gregg had asked for and received forgiveness for doing so much worse at the same age...I would have wanted and expected him to give the same grace to Gio.  This is why the current situation is so very hurtful and hard."

For starters, the two situations are entirely different.  What does what Berhalter did to his wife 30 years ago have anything to do with how he handled Gio's situation in Qatar?  In Qatar, he was being a coach who had to make a decision that was best for the entire team.  He had expectations that 25 of the 26 players were meeting.  He called out the one who wasn't.  That's a coach's job. 

It doesn't matter who that player is.  It's the player's job to accept the decision and take accountability.  That's exactly what happened when Weston McKennie was sent home for breaking COVID protocols during one of the qualifying windows.  He understood why, took it like a man, and was welcomed back with open arms.  And it should've been what happened with Gio Reyna in Qatar.  Except it wasn't.

Regardless of what happens with Berhalter, U.S. Soccer has backed themselves into a corner here.  Claudio Reyna has a lot of friends and former teammates among the higher-ups.  Are they going to cater to what he wants in every situation?  If so, they're letting Claudio (and, by extension, Gio) Reyna hold them hostage for the duration of Gio's career with the National Team.  And, if that's the case, what coach would ever even consider taking the job?

And, make no mistake, should U.S. Soccer decide to let Berhalter go, the job would otherwise be a very desirable one.  A very talented young team that will only get better with a bona fide star in Pulisic that reached the knockout phase of the last World Cup and is hosting the next one.  The last thing that coach should have to worry about is making sure they aren't mean to Gio Reyna and that he plays enough to keep Mommy and Daddy happy.  And what kind of message would that send to the other players who actually earn their playing time?!

So, like I said, U.S. Soccer is in a no-win situation here.  And it's really a situation of their own making.  They'll ultimately have to decide how much influence they want Claudio & Danielle Reyna have over the National Team.  They also need to make it clear that the coach (whoever that is) is in charge of who's on the roster and how much playing time they get.  Not them.

My 2022-23 NFL Picks (Week 17)

There's two weeks left in the NFL season and no team in either South division is over .500.  It's looking likely that at least one of the two divisions (probably the AFC South) will have a sub-.500 division winner.  I'm sorry, but that's just sad!  And, making matters worse, Dallas and whoever doesn't win the AFC North will have to go on the road and face whoever the least-bad team in those divisions is in the playoffs.

Thursday Night: Dallas (Win)

Cardinals (4-11) at Falcons (5-10): Atlanta-Two teams for whom the season can't end soon enough!  The Cardinals saw Tom Brady pull a Christmas miracle against them, and the Falcons haven't won since before Thanksgiving.  So, yeah, they're both playing out the stretch.  Atlanta's slightly less bad and playing at home, so they get the nod in a game that will likely be far less exciting than the Peach Bowl.  (Sidebar: that's a quick turnaround for the Mercedes Benz Stadium facilities staff...on a holiday no less!)

Bears (3-12) at Lions (7-8): Detroit-After building all of that momentum and giving themselves a legitimate shot at the playoffs, the Lions had to go blow it last week.  What makes their loss to the Panthers even worse is the fact that every other wild card contender also lost.  And now those playoff chances have taken a tremendous hit.  They can win their last two and still not make it.  Those two games are the only thing in their control, however.  And if they want next week to mean something, they can't lose to the Bears at home.

Broncos (4-11) at Chiefs (12-3): Kansas City-Give the Broncos' new owners some credit for realizing Nathaniel Hackett was in over his head and their offense was a lost cause.  Would it really have mattered if they let him coach the last two games?  Probably not.  But this way they can talk to (and hire) Sean Payton earlier.  Anyway, they've lost 14 straight to the Chiefs, and that will most likely become 15.  The Chiefs will then watch the Monday night game with great interest.

Dolphins (8-7) at Patriots (7-8): New England-Miami must be thrilled December is over!  The Dolphins were 8-3 when the month started.  Now they're 8-7.  Yet, despite this four-game losing streak, they actually have a legit chance to clinch a playoff spot this week with a win and a Jets loss.  The Jets losing thing is definitely possible, but them getting back in the win column is the problem.  New England has also lost two straight to leave its chances for the remaining AFC wild card hanging by a thread, but I think they go into Week 18 still with a chance.

Colts (4-10-1) at Giants (8-6-1): Giants-All the Giants need to do to clinch their first playoff berth in six years is win one of their final two games (they have a game-and-a-half lead, so they don't necessarily need to win as long as the Seahawks lose once, but it would make life so much easier).  And doing so at home against a Colts team they should beat definitely sounds like an easier proposition than going into Philly facing a must-win against the likely No. 1 seed.  So, yeah, this is a big game for Big Blue.

Saints (6-9) at Eagles (13-2): Philadelphia-The situation for the Eagles is the same as it was last week.  If they win, they're the No. 1 seed in the NFC playoffs.  Getting it done this week would be huge, though.  They don't want to go into their final game knowing Dallas still has a shot.  They'd much rather be able to sit some of their starters and, more importantly, give Jalen Hurts an extra week off.  Even without Hurts under center, they should be able to take care of New Orleans at home.

Panthers (6-9) at Buccaneers (7-8): Tampa Bay-Thanks to their offense finally showing up with five minutes left on Christmas night, the Bucs are in position to play that Wild Card home game against Dallas.  All they need to do is win one of their final two games.  They can wrap up the NFC South this week, as a matter of fact, if they beat the Panthers.  Carolina has been playing well of late, so I'm not putting this one in the win column yet, but I'm also not going against Brady when he's got a shot at clinching a playoff berth.

Browns (6-9) at Commanders (7-7-1): Washington-With the exception of Green Bay, everybody in contention for the remaining two NFC wild cards lost last week.  Which was great news for the Commanders, who held on to the 7-seed and know that if they win their last two games, they're in the playoffs.  Both of those games are at home, and next week they play a Dallas team that will be locked into the 5-seed, so that's entirely possible.

Jaguars (7-8) at Texans (2-12-1): Jacksonville-As crazy as it sounds, the Jaguars are in the driver's seat for the AFC South title.  A win this week, a win next week against the Titans (in what, I'd imagine, will probably be the Saturday night game), and Jacksonville has a home playoff game.  Of course, the reason they're in this position is because Houston beat Tennessee last week, and the Texans actually held their own against Dallas and Kansas City.  Can they make it two in a row, though?

49ers (11-4) at Raiders (6-9): San Francisco-I'm still not entirely sold on San Francisco.  I know I should be since their defense is elite and they were in the NFC Championship Game last season.  There's just something I think they're missing, though.  However, I will admit that their path back to the NFC Championship Game is actually pretty good.  They've actually still got a shot at the 1-seed, but it's an outside shot.  They know they're most likely No. 3.

Jets (7-8) at Seahawks (7-8): Seattle-Whoever wins this game will enter its season finale still alive for the playoffs.  Whoever loses is out.  Who would've thunk we'd be saying that about either of these teams on the first day of 2023?  Anyway, Seattle has been one of the surprise teams in the league this season.  The Jets, meanwhile, are still in it despite their quarterback situation.  Traveling cross-country to face an opponent that's very good at home is a very tough assignment for them, though.

Vikings (12-3) at Packers (7-8): Minnesota-Outside of getting blown out by Dallas, virtually all of Minnesota's games this season have been decided by one score, including last week, when they beat the Giants on a 61-yard field goal as time expired.  The one exception was their 23-7 victory over the Packers in Week 1.  That set the tone for both teams' seasons.  Of course, the Packers still think they're in it because of this late-season run they've gone on, but they're gonna find out it was too little, too late.  The Vikings win another one-possession game.

Rams (5-10) at Chargers (9-6): Chargers-A few weeks ago, I wondered aloud when the Chargers would get their acts together and play like they actually wanted to make the playoffs.  Well, three straight wins later, Justin Herbert and Co. are headed to the playoffs!  I'm curious to see how they'll play now that they've clinched and know they'll be a wild card, but they've still got plenty to play for.  For starters, they know the 6-seed will be playing somebody really good, so getting up to No. 5 and visiting the AFC South champion is obviously preferable.

Steelers (7-8) at Ravens (10-5): Baltimore-They flexed this one into Sunday night, and it's likely the first of back-to-back Sunday night games for Baltimore.  If the Ravens win, their game in Cincinnati next week will be for the AFC North title regardless of what happens in the Bengals-Bills game.  Although, part of me in convinced that they flexed this one because they realized if they didn't, they wouldn't have either one.  And what's a season of Sunday Night Football without a Steelers-Ravens matchup?!

Bills (12-3) at Bengals (11-4): Cincinnati-Saving the best game of the week for last!  You know that the NFL thought the chances were pretty good this would be a meaningful game when they scheduled it for after the Rose Bowl, but I doubt even they knew how significant.  The Bills will clinch at least the 2-seed with a win.  If they lose, though, they'll drop to No. 3 and have a loss to Cincinnati.  The Bengals, meanwhile, can clinch the division with a win and a Ravens loss.  But if Baltimore wins, that sets up a head-to-head showdown for the division next Sunday night no matter what.  A Cincinnati loss here, though, would mean the winner of that game is guaranteed the 3-seed, which means a trip to either Buffalo or Kansas City in the Divisional Playoffs.  So, yeah, huge game!  For both teams!

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-5
Overall: 142-97-2