Another Set of SEC Tigers

The dust has barely settled on the latest round of conference realignment, and we still have no idea what's gonna happen between the Pac-2 and Mountain West, but that hasn't stopped the latest round in this seemingly never-ending conversation from being discussed.  Now it's Clemson.  They aren't happy in the ACC and want out.  They've made no secret about that.  They've also made no secret about where they want to go.

Clemson was one of three schools that voted against Stanford, Cal and SMU joining the ACC, along with Florida State and North Carolina.  (NC State was originally a fourth vote against before changing its mind, giving them enough "yes" votes for the expansion to proceed.)  Even after the three new members made some concessions as part of their admission, that apparently wasn't enough to satisfy Clemson.  They've previewed an October announcement about their future, which sure makes it look like they're intending to leave the ACC.

When the ACC signed its most recent media rights deal with ESPN, every school signed a "grant of rights" with the conference, meaning any revenue would be split equally between conference members for the duration of the contract.  The ACC's grant of rights doesn't expire until 2036.  If a team leaves the conference before then, they forfeit whatever their remaining share is.  It's because of the grant of rights that the ACC seemed immune to any conference realignment talk.  Seemed is the key word here.

At the time, every ACC team was satisfied with the grant of rights because they're guaranteed a significant payout throughout the duration of the deal.  The ACC's revenue has only gone up since then, so the payments have, thus, also increased.  However, they've since seen the Big Ten and SEC sign new media rights deals that will guarantee their members significantly more than ACC teams.  Clemson and Florida State are especially unhappy with that gap and are worried it will result in them getting left behind.

As a response to those concerns, the ACC created a pool that will allow schools to earn more based on their performance.  Stanford and Cal also agreed to take a reduced share.  And SMU will take no share at all for their first seven years in the ACC!  That should help fill the gap a little bit.  It's still not enough for Clemson, though.  And, it seems, the addition of the three Western schools has only increased their desire to leave.

Where would Clemson go?  Well, that's obvious.  The SEC's adding Texas and Oklahoma next season.  That's what got this whole merry-go-round started again to begin with.  Don't be surprised if Clemson and Florida State are the next to receive SEC invites.

Adding Texas and Oklahoma brought the SEC to 16.  Once the Big Ten adds the four Pac-12 schools next season, they'll have 18.  The Big XII will also be at 16 when they swap Texas and Oklahoma for their four Pac-12 schools.  The SEC and Big Ten have been the two top dogs in college athletics for a while.  So, as soon as the Big Ten got to 18, you know the SEC was looking to at least match that number.

But what schools make sense for the SEC?  Clemson and Florida State.  They're obvious fits not just because of their success in football, but because they're already in the SEC footprint and have existing rivalries with SEC members South Carolina (Clemson) and Florida (Florida State).  So, they'd be good fits all the way around.  And the interest is certainly mutual.

Going to the SEC is clearly Clemson and Florida State's ultimate goal.  They've been the most successful ACC football programs, so they feel like they deserve a larger share than their current conference opponents.  They're also the highest-profile ACC football teams, so they also generate much more revenue than Boston College or Virginia Tech.  Those are just some of the reasons why they feel like the SEC is a better fit for them football-wise.

This news isn't all that shocking.  In fact, if we're being honest, it's a development that many of us likely expected.  As soon as it became public that Clemson, Florida State and North Carolina voted against the expansion and the ACC did it anyway, it became obvious that Clemson and Florida State would look to leave sooner rather than later.  North Carolina is less of a guarantee because of their relationship with NC State and Duke, but if they were to get an offer from the Big Ten whenever it decides it wants to become the Big Ten x 2 (which is entirely possible), you know they'll jump at the chance.

Frankly, that's why adding Stanford, Cal and SMU was so important for the ACC.  Yes, they threw Stanford and Cal a lifeline after they got left out of the Pac-12 exodus.  But they also knew as a conference that they couldn't get left out in this round of realignment.  Not when everyone else was expanding.  And not when they had clearly dissatisfied members who they knew were looking for a way out.

With the three additions, the ACC will have 18 next year (17 in football).  If they hadn't added them and Clemson and Florida State still left for the SEC, then the ACC would be down to 12 football-playing members and 13 in everything else.  That's clearly not enough in this new era where other conferences have 18 teams.  Now, even if Florida State and Clemson leave, they'll still have 16 (15 in football), which is still comparable to the other Power 4 conferences.

Of course, the ACC is still the most vulnerable of the Power 4 conferences, and you know that Clemson and Florida State won't be the only targets when/if the other leagues want to expand.  I've already heard Virginia mentioned along with North Carolina for the Big Ten.  And, everyone (including Notre Dame) knows that Notre Dame really should be in the Big Ten.  So, this would by far be the last of it.

We also have no idea if Clemson definitely wants to leave the ACC for the SEC.  This is all just speculation at this point.  It certainly seems credible, though.  And, while we haven't heard as much about Florida State, we know they're disgruntled, too.  So them going to the SEC together seems inevitable sooner or later.  Likely sooner.

Big Super Bowl Halftime Gets

The NFL has announced that Usher will headline the Super Bowl halftime show this season.  Rihanna was gonna be a tough act to follow regardless of the artist, but I was still a little surprised by the selection.  The Super Bowl's in Las Vegas, where so many musical acts have residencies that they literally could've asked pretty much anyone they wanted and that artist could conceivably do both Super Bowl halftime and their Vegas residency on that Sunday night.  I'm not disappointed or saying Usher was a bad selection.  He's just not the name I was expecting to hear as the headliner.

There's one name that's been circulating as a potential halftime headliner for several years, and if the NFL were ever to get her, it would be their biggest get since Beyonce literally made the lights go out in New Orleans.  Maybe even bigger.  I'm, of course, talking about the woman who sold out NFL stadiums all summer and is now generating a whole new round of buzz because of her possible relationship with Travis Kelce.  (There are people who've never even heard of Travis Kelce buying #87 Chiefs jerseys.)

If the NFL can get Taylor Swift, it would be HUGE!  And, if you can get Taylor Swift, you get Taylor Swift.  She's a global superstar who would get non-football fans to watch (even if it's only for the halftime show).  You just know it would be an amazing show, too.

Although, there was a discussion about that possibility on sports talk radio last week, and, I must say, good points were made on both sides.  You know the second Taylor Swift's announced as the halftime act, the Swifties will gobble up every available ticket.  (Tickets to her shows were so expensive that they'll make the cost of a Super Bowl ticket seem like nothing.)  And a lot of them probably couldn't care less about football.  Not all, but enough.  Is that what you want for the Super Bowl?  It's a championship game, not a concert!  Fans should be there for the game, not the halftime act.

Now, there are also plenty of people who are fans of both football and Taylor Swift.  That would be the best of both worlds.  And, even if they aren't necessarily "fans," they'll at least be familiar with her and her music.  That's always the challenge with Super Bowl halftime.  Finding someone mainstream enough to appeal to such a wide audience.  Taylor Swift certainly fits that bill.  Which is why I say, if you can do it, do it.  Just think about the amount of buzz it would generate, too.  It would be the biggest Super Bowl halftime show since Michael Jackson changed it forever 30 years ago.

Taylor Swift isn't the only major star who's never performed at halftime of the Super Bowl.  Not by a long shot.  And, while she's probably at the top of the list (especially now that Rihanna's off the board), she isn't the only performer who'd put on a great show while appealing to a broad enough fanbase.  There are plenty of other artists who fit that bill.  Artists like...

Bon Jovi: Frankly, it's shocking that Bon Jovi hasn't played Super Bowl halftime yet.  They had the perfect opportunity when the game was in New Jersey, but they went with Bruno Mars instead that year.  It's especially crazy when you consider Jon Bon Jovi owned a team in the arena league (the Philadelphia Soul) for many years.

Kelly Clarkson: She's hosted NFL Honors and is not shy about how big of a Dallas Cowboys fan she is.  She has fans going all the way back to American Idol, but just as many know her from The Voice and her talk show.  That's a pretty wide net, and you know she's a football fan.

Carrie Underwood: We've been hearing Carrie Underwood singing the Sunday Night Football anthem for the better part of a decade, so this one only seems natural.  Her fanbase goes way beyond football fans, too.  She's one of the most popular artists in all of country music.  I'd imagine that if she were to do halftime, she'd do it in a year when NBC has the Super Bowl.  Their next is Super Bowl LX in February 2026.

Miley Cyrus: This was obviously the Summer of Taylor, but Miley was probably a close second.  She's as popular as ever right now, and I think this would be nearly as big of a get for the NFL.  Miley isn't a fan of touring, so doing the Super Bowl halftime show with millions of people watching seems perfect for her, too.  If you've ever seen one of her New Year's Eve specials, you know she can command a stage.

The Jonas Brothers: Don't be surprised if they get a call about Super Bowl halftime sooner or later.  Maybe even next year, assuming their tour is over.  They've already performed at halftime at another one of the NFL's showcases--last year's Thanksgiving game in Dallas.  They've released a new album, gone on tour and seemingly gotten more popular since then, so this one seems like a no-brainer eventually.

P!nk: From everything I've heard and seen, P!nk is an amazing live performer.  And she's one of those sneaky artists where you "don't know any songs" until they start singing and you know every word to every song.  Frankly, I think she's right up the NFL's alley.

Luke Bryan/Kenny Chesney: Once the Titans finish building their new stadium, it seems pretty likely that they'll be given a Super Bowl.  And if the Super Bowl's gonna be in Nashville, that halftime show better be country!  Just think of the amazing concert they could put on in country music's backyard!  Luke Bryan and Kenny Chesney are two of the biggest names in country right now, so why not have them be the headliners?

Ed Sheeran: I'll be the first to admit that Ed Sheeran isn't the right type of artist for Super Bowl halftime.  It's like that year Coldplay did it.  I'm sure their fans loved it.  But their style of music just didn't fit the occasion.  It would be a similar situation with Ed Sheeran.  That doesn't change the fact it would be a massive get for the NFL.

Drake: That celebration of hip hop last year in LA, with all of those legends on stage together. was very well received.  Not just by fans of the genre, but music fans in general.  The biggest name in hip hop currently is Drake, of course.  Every college sports team's pregame playlist features at least one Drake song, usually more.  He's a well-known basketball fan who regularly sits courtside at NBA games, but I don't know how much interest in football he has.  I'm also not sure how much people who don't listen to hip hop would like/appreciate him.  He might have enough fans to make it worth the risk, though.

Adele: Much like T-Swift, Adele is up there in her own stratosphere.  She's the type of artist that people who aren't familiar with her might question at first.  And I do concede that she seems like an odd fit for the Super Bowl.  But every time Adele performs, she brings it.  And not all of her songs are sad.  I just have a feeling that people would go in not knowing what to expect and end up loving it.

Who Should Stay and Who Should Go

Now that the Yankees have officially been eliminated from postseason contention (a foregone conclusion that we all knew was inevitable in like mid-August), the focus can finally shift to next season.  Owner Hal Steinbrenner has promised a "thorough review" of "all areas" and promised there will definitely be some changes.  Unfortunately, it looks like Brian Cashman and Aaron Boone will both be staying.  But there are two other areas that won't be so lucky.  And, frankly, there are people in both departments who need to go.

The first is the medical staff.  This includes both athletic training and strength & conditioning.  I don't know how much can be blamed on the team doctors, so I could go either way there.  But the athletic training and strength & conditioning staffs absolutely deserve to be held accountable for the team's injury problems, which aren't exclusive to this season.

Injuries are inevitable over the course of a 162-game season.  And sometimes freak things happen like Aaron Judge running into a wall in LA or Anthony Rizzo getting a concussion in a collision at first base.  But the sheer amount of injuries and the mishandling of them is glaring.  Which is why something needs to be done.

Frankly, their handling of Anthony Rizzo's injury alone is enough of a reason.  Clearing him to play when he was clearly concussed is borderline malpractice!  When Rizzo came back after the collision with Fernando Tatis Jr., everyone thought it meant he was good to play.  When he went into an extended slump right after that, it became clear that he was not.  Except the team didn't announce that he was still dealing with concussion symptoms until after he was placed back on the injured list!  If he was still having symptoms, why was he cleared to come back at all then?!

Then there's the bullpen.  How many different relievers has this team used (out of necessity) in the last two years?  Every reliever has been on the IL at some point, for stretches of varying length.  Every!  Single!  One!  Jonathan Loaisiga has been on the IL like three different times this season, and he wasn't particularly effective when he was "healthy."  There are clearly issues with their strength training and/or rehabilitation that's leading to all of these injuries on the pitching staff.

Next, let's talk about the analytics department.  It's been an unmitigated disaster.  Simply put, going all-in on analytics a few years ago has not worked.  Their goal is to win a championship every season, yet they've only won one pennant in the last 20 years!  That should say enough all on its own.  And the decision to build the team with an analytics-based approach isn't getting them any closer to that goal.

One of the reasons they committed so hard to analytics is because it was working for other teams.  Specifically teams like the Rays and Astros.  So, they tried to copy them.  Except, the Rays and Astros were still better at it.  And, they weren't just better at it.  They were better teams with better players.  So, you're doing the same thing as two teams that do it better than you with better players and you somehow expect to beat them?

You're the New York Freakin' Yankees!  Either flex your financial muscle or don't.  But this half-assed approach where you're trying to have it both ways didn't work.  If you're trying to do the analytic thing, do it!  But make sure you have the right personnel.  Because the New York Yankees, the Bronx Bombers, are meant to hit home runs.  That's how the team was built.  So why are you trying to do something different that simply isn't a fit with the players you have?

And, while we're on the subject of not building the team correctly, you've played in three different iterations of Yankee Stadium for a century.  All of them are known for their short porch in right field.  Which is why the Yankees have had so many great left-handed power hitters over the years.  So, why then, has the team been so predominantly right-handed for so long?  This isn't a new problem, either.  Until the recent call-ups, Anthony Rizzo was the only left-handed hitting regular.  When he was out, they were entirely right-handed.  How could the Yankees have a starting lineup without a single left-handed hitter?  It's completely unfathomable!

That extends to the starting rotation, too.  Whitey Ford.  Ron Guidry.  Andy Pettitte.  CC Sabathia.  What do they all have in common?  They aren't just some of the best starting pitchers in Yankees history.  They're also all left-handed.  Again, it makes sense.  You get a left-handed starter so that teams have to use a predominantly right-handed lineup at Yankee Stadium.

Since Sabathia retired, they haven't had that left-handed ace.  They had Jordan Montgomery...and traded him to the Cardinals.  They had Nestor Cortes...who had a great year last season, when he made the All*Star team, but struggled this year before being shut down due to injury.  They tried to address this need last winter in free agency.  And they successfully landed Carlos Rodon.  Rodon's first season in pinstripes wasn't anything to write home about, however.  It's too early to call that signing a bust, but it hasn't exactly been one of their best moves in recent years, either.

There have been a lot of questionable moves in recent years, as a matter of fact.  Joey Gallo.  Josh Donaldson.  Aaron Hicks.  Frankie Montas.  The misses have far outweighed the successes (Anthony Rizzo).  It was actually kind of refreshing to hear Hal explain the reason why the Yankees didn't do anything at the trade deadline.  He's sick of Cashman's poor judgment and didn't want to give up any more prospects in bad trades.  They were gonna play instead.

Hal is openly questioning Cashman's judgment, which makes me think that Cashman's job might not be as secure as we're being led to believe.  Even if he keeps him, the leash will definitely be a little shorter.  Unlike his famously volatile father, Hal has generally stayed out of the baseball operations, leaving those decisions to Cashman and his staff instead.  I'm not sure that hands off approach will continue moving forward.

Even if Cashman does stay, you'd have to figure there will be some changes on the baseball operations staff.  Beyond just the analytics department.  Because there have been failures all the way around in scouting and player evaluations.  There's been bad information being passed somewhere in the process.  Personally, I'd like to see Cashman move into some sort of Senior VP position and have an entirely new general manager with an entirely different vision.  It's been 25 years.  It's time for a new set of eyes.  It doesn't look like that'll happen, though, so if Cashman's gonna keep making the decisions, let those decisions be more informed.

Finally, there's the on-field coaching staff.  Both Cashman and Aaron Judge like Aaron Boone, who has another year left on his contract.  So, it doesn't look like he's going anywhere, either.  The rest of his staff might not be so lucky.  Hitting coach Dillon Lawson was already let go in June.  He was replaced by Sean Casey, who was told it's up to him whether he wants to return next season.  The hitting didn't exactly improve much under Casey, but he has done some good things and will presumably be welcomed back should he decide he wants to continue in the role.  As for the other coaches, I'm not sure I'd keep any of them.

While the 2023 campaign was a disaster on many levels, one that left the franchise embarrassed, some good might come out of it.  Because winning covers up a lot of flaws.  Those flaws have now been exposed, and that'll lead to necessary changes.  Changes that, frankly, should've been made several years ago.

2023 Picks, Week 3

Through two weeks, the NFC is 6-0 against the AFC this season.  So, if you want to know why there are still seven undefeated teams in the NFC and only two in the AFC, look no further than that stat.  With Buffalo playing Washington and Kansas City playing Chicago this week, though, I think that may change and the AFC will pick up its first interconference win (or wins) of the season.

Thursday Night: San Francisco (Win)

Titans (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Tennessee-That was painful to watch last week.  Nick Chubb's injury was pretty gruesome, and the Browns will definitely need to figure out something moving forward.  Not surprisingly, they brought Kareem Hunt back to be their RB2.  How much does that offense change without Chubb as the feature back, though?  The offense's first test is against a Titans team that enters 1-1, but could easily be 2-0 or 0-2.  The combined score in their first two games is 42-40.  It's been that close.  I expect them to win another close one in Cleveland.

Falcons (2-0) at Lions (1-1): Detroit-After they went into Kansas City and won, pretty much everyone expected the Lions to win their home opener last week.  So, of course, they went and lost in overtime.  The Falcons, meanwhile, held on to beat the Packers and go to 2-0.  Honestly, I'm not too worried about Detroit.  Atlanta will give them a challenge, but they should win a close one.

Saints (2-0) at Packers (1-1): New Orleans-Are the Saints lucky, good, or a little bit of both?  Honestly, I'm not quite sure.  The bottom line is, though, they're 2-0 and they didn't give up a touchdown until their seventh quarter of the season.  And I think that defense is definitely legit.  They'll prove it when they go into Lambeau and spoil the Packers' home opener by completely shutting down Jordan Love and Co.

Broncos (0-2) at Dolphins (2-0): Miami-Miami isn't just 2-0.  The Dolphins are 2-0 after winning two road games.  Maybe last year wasn't a fluke.  We really need to pay attention to this team.  And Sean Payton seems to be realizing that things won't be that easy in Denver.  The Broncos still have many of the same problems as they had last year.  Just gonna throw this out there...maybe Russell Wilson isn't that good a quarterback anymore?

Chargers (0-2) at Vikings (0-2): Minnesota-Two playoff teams from last season.  Both off to an 0-2 start.  So, they could both use a win.  Look for the Vikings to be the team that gets it.  They played the Thursday night game last week, so they've had plenty of time off since a close loss to a very good Eagles team.  The Chargers lost in overtime last week, but they're traveling for the second straight week, which is part of the reason why I'm going with Minnesota.

Patriots (0-2) at Jets (1-1): Jets-Call me crazy, but I actually like the Jets in this one.  The Patriots played two home games and lost them both.  Yes, they were playing the Eagles and Dolphins, but was there anything inspiring about either of those efforts (other than the amazing throwback uniforms with Pat the Patriot)?  Actually, can we just make it a rule that every Patriots-Jets game is the Pat the Patriot throwbacks vs. the New York Sack Exchange throwbacks?

Bills (1-1) at Commanders (2-0): Buffalo-For the Bills, Week 2 was much more like it.  That's what they're used to.  Not what they did in the second half against the Jets.  Washington, meanwhile, is 2-0 for the first time in 20 years.  Although, it took a crazy finish in Denver for that to happen.  They've played the Cardinals and Broncos, though, and only won those games by a combined six points.  They face a massive step-up in competition against the Bills.

Texans (0-2) at Jaguars (1-1): Jacksonville-The Jaguars will be setting up shop in London for the next two weeks after this one.  They should head across the pond with a 2-1 record.  Because the Texans are not good.  Jacksonville is.  Even though they lost last week and didn't score a touchdown, that was still a solid performance.  They held Kansas City to just 17 points and showed they can hang with them.  It also showed that their defense is very good.

Colts (1-1) at Ravens (2-0): Baltimore-While it would be a stretch to call Baltimore the best team in the AFC, you can't argue with the Ravens' performance in their first two games.  They're one of only two AFC teams to start the season 2-0, and there's no reason to think they won't make it three straight wins.  The Colts are better than the Texans and did what the better team should do.  Just like how the Ravens are the better team than Indianapolis.

Panthers (0-2) at Seahawks (1-1): Seattle-Add another team to the list of those Andy Dalton has started for!  Although, Frank Reich has made it clear it'll only be for the one game and Bryce Young will be the starter again once he's healthy.  What happens if the Panthers get their first win this week, though?  They've only played two games and are already two games out in the division, so they kind of need it.  That, unfortunately, seems unlikely, however.

Bears (0-2) at Chiefs (1-1): Kansas City-Can someone please explain to me why the NFL keeps insisting on forcing the Chicago Bears on the nation?  It's Week 3, it's their second national doubleheader game, and most of the country got them in the early window last week.  Why?  They aren't good or worth watching!  I don't understand it!  At least this week, you can say the reason is because they're playing the Chiefs.  Here's to more Travis Kelce-Taylor Swift puns!

Cowboys (2-0) at Cardinals (0-2): Dallas-Is there a better offense in the NFL than Dallas right now?  The Cowboys outscored the New York teams 70-10 in their first two games.  Now they go to Arizona to face a Cardinals team that took a massive first-half lead against the Giants only to give it all away.  Against Dallas, they won't get a big lead to blow.

Steelers (1-1) at Raiders (1-1): Pittsburgh-"Pretty" is not a word I would use to describe the Steelers' win over the Browns on Monday night, but it was a win nonetheless.  Now they travel to Las Vegas for a Sunday night matchup with the Raiders.  I'm not enamored with this Sunday Night Football selection, but the Steelers and Raiders both have big fanbases, so I kind of get it.  It's actually Pittsburgh's first road game of the season after opening with two at home.

Eagles (2-0) at Buccaneers (2-0): Philadelphia-Game one of the Monday night "doubleheader" will see one of the NFC's unbeaten teams go down for the first time this year.  It's only been two games, but the Eagles sure seem to have picked up where they left off last season.  And I give the Bucs credit.  No one knew how life post-Brady would go, but they started it with two wins.  They won't make it three.

Rams (1-1) at Bengals (0-2): Cincinnati-It's only Week 3 and Cincinnati is already in danger of seeing the season slipping away.  Especially if Joe Burrow is out for any extended period of time.  I locked my picks in before the Thursday night game, when I thought there was still a possibility he'd play.  So, even though I'm more inclined to say the Rams will win, I had already taken the Bengals in this one, so I'll stick with it.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 13-3
Overall: 23-10 

Promotion, Relegation & the Pac-2

Promotion and relegation have been a staple of European soccer for decades.  Now Washington State and Oregon State want to bring the concept to American college sports.  It's all part of their attempt to salvage whatever's left of the Pac-2.  It's interesting to say the least.  And it'll never work.  But, hey, I give them credit for thinking outside the box!

This new plan seems to be the first sign that they've accepted their fate.  While they've said an official announcement won't come until next month, it's looking increasingly likely that Washington State and Oregon State will be involved in some sort of merger with the Mountain West.  They're just trying to figure out the logistics of what the new conference will look like.  Which is where this ridiculous promotion/relegation plan came from.

The Mountain West currently has 11 full members, plus Hawaii as an associate member in football.  Washington State and Oregon State will bring that to 13, but they would likely need to add at least three more schools for the promotion/relegation idea to even be feasible (two if Hawaii becomes a full member, which I think they should).  Then, the top eight schools would, presumably, play in the new Pac-8, with the remaining eight playing in the Mountain West and promotion/relegation between the top two in Mountain West and bottom two in Pac-8.

Let's, for argument's sake, say they get the buy-in for this insane plan.  The first thing they'd need to do is add two teams (I'm making Hawaii a full member for the sake of this exercise).  Those would likely come from Conference USA, and I'll take the two westernmost Conference USA teams--New Mexico State and UTEP.  They fit both competitively and geographically, and it would actually be a reunion between UTEP and several of its former WAC rivals.

Things start to get complicated right away, though.  Because who do you put in each conference?  You'd figure Washington State, Oregon State, San Diego State and Boise State would automatically go on the Pac-8 side, but who are the other four?  And how would you determine that?  Fresno State and Utah State have had the most recent football success, so I guess that would make them five and six, then San Jose State would be number seven.  But who's the eighth?  Nevada?  Colorado State?  UNLV?

Then there's the frequency at which teams are promoted and relegated.  Logistically, I'd think you'd have to do it on a two-year cycle so that teams can make their schedules and plan their travel accordingly.  Maybe you base it on a team's two-year record, with the two worst records being relegated and the two Mountain West champions (or the team with the second-best overall record if the same team wins in back-to-back years) being promoted?

And would it apply only to football?  If so, what about the other sports?  I suppose you could determine the conferences for every sport based entirely on the football standings, but basing it on overall performance would definitely be the fairer way to go.  Every conference already has its own commissioner's cup or similar type of trophy for all-sport success, which is determined via an existing point system.  I say you use that same all-sport point system to create your divisions/"conferences."

I'll admit, if it works, it definitely sounds intriguing.  It would give teams incentive to be as strong as possible in every sport as a means of avoiding relegation (or getting promoted).  But it could also be self-defeating.  It's an admission that half your league isn't as good as the other half.  And it wouldn't achieve the desired result of keeping the Pac-2's position as a Power 5 league.  Especially when a 14-team full Mountain West would be a stronger conference than two eight-team mini-leagues.

Getting a TV partner on board would likely be a tough sell, too.  The lack of a TV contract is what killed the Pac-12, and I can't see the combined conference getting a deal lucrative enough to make this plan worthwhile.  Especially since it's not European soccer, where they have the relegation battle at the end of the season and it keeps people invested.  There's no way there would be anywhere near the same sort of investment at the end of the Pac-8/Mountain West baseball season to see who'll be in which league the following year.

Every sport other than football causes a different set of logistical issues, too.  Among existing Mountain West members, the only sports that have a full complement of teams are men's and women's basketball, women's track & field, women's volleyball, women's tennis and men's golf.  Football (Hawaii) and women's soccer (Colorado College) both have an associate member.  So, while promotion and relegation sounds great in sports that have 16 teams, what do you do in baseball, which would only have 12?  Or Olympic sports, where the size of the conference really doesn't matter?

While the idea sounds great in theory, I can't see Mountain West presidents and athletic directors signing off on it.  Because who does it really benefit?  It strengthens the top half of the league, which would be very strong and very competitive nationally.  But it would also make the other "conference" incredibly weak by comparison.  And it would do nothing to help the middle-of-the-road programs.  Sure, they'd stand a better chance of winning against the weaker opponents, but that would do nothing to help their strength of schedule, which is often the No. 1 thing taken into account when it comes to NCAA Tournament at-large bids.

Of course, we all know the main reason for all of this.  And I get it.  Oregon State and Washington State are doing everything in their power to preserve the Pac-2 brand (that they currently own) and everything it represents.  Not just the history.  There are NCAA Tournament shares and, most importantly, NCAA Tournament auto-bids that would go away if the conference were to completely disappear.

They obviously don't want that, so they're trying to come up with a creative solution.  And they definitely deserve credit for their creativity.  I'm not sure how feasible it is in practice, though.  There seem to be a lot of potential issues that would come with just trying to get it off the ground.  Not the least of which, you'd have half of the Mountain West pissed off that they got put in the "weaker" league.

None of this is Oregon State or Washington State's fault.  They're the biggest victims yet of conference realignment.  They're going from being in a Power 5 league (that, ironically, might be the best in the country right now) to not being in one.  That, unfortunately, isn't going to change.  Even if this ridiculous promotion/relegation merger with the Mountain West goes through, that won't change.

ESPN On ABC Making Things Complicated

This week was the first of three scheduled Monday Night Football "doubleheaders" (even though they aren't doubleheaders, they're simultaneous games) this season.  There's another one scheduled for next week, and a third scheduled for early December.  ABC was also already planning on simulcasting the ESPN broadcast of several other Monday night games.  That has turned into every Monday night game this season, which will cover one night of programming for ABC during the WGA and SAG strikes.

It brings me back to when I was a kid and Hank Williams, Jr., was asking us "Are you ready for some football?" every week.  And it's part of the bigger strategy that sees ABC more integrated into ESPN's NFL coverage.  ABC has even reentered the Super Bowl rotation under the NFL's new TV contract that began this season.  Which actually really complicates things for ABC and ESPN's owner, Disney.

Disney has made no secret of the fact that it's trying to divest some of its linear channels and shift its focus to streaming.  They have no interest in selling ESPN (although, they would love to eventually make it a streaming-only platform), but everything else is up for grabs, including ABC.  They evidently have a potential buyer in Nexstar, but selling ABC could end up being more complicated than originally thought.  And sports are the reason why.

When Disney purchased ABC and ESPN, they eliminated ABC Sports.  All sports programming on ABC is produced by ESPN and even marketed as "ESPN on ABC."  That works because the two networks have the same owner.  (Kind of like how NBC utilizes USA and CNBC for some of its Olympic sports programming.)  If Disney sells one network and not the other, though, suddenly it doesn't work so well.

Think about all of the sports that air on ABC, too.  And the number of games has only grown in recent years.  ESPN/ABC is the primary broadcaster for both the NBA and NHL, and not to mention all of the college football!  NCAA Tournaments have increasingly been shown on ABC, too, with last season's women's basketball championship game airing on ABC and this year's women's volleyball championship scheduled for a Sunday afternoon on ABC, as well.  ESPN also has exclusive rights to the MLB Wild Card Series.  Last year, they put the Cardinals-Phillies series on ABC, and they'll likely do that again this season.  They even used ABC for some of their US Open and Wimbledon coverage this year.

I don't know the specifics of all these broadcast contracts, but some (all?) of them call for a certain number of games on ABC.  The NBA Finals are exclusively on ABC, and so is the Stanley Cup Final in alternating years.  The Little League World Series is primarily on ESPN...with the U.S., International and World Championship Games on ABC the final weekend.  And the only reason ESPN was added to the Super Bowl rotation is because they committed to airing the game on ABC when it's their turn (they're currently set to air Super Bowls LXI & LXV).

That's just the pro leagues.  ABC also figures into ESPN's deal with the NCAA, as well as the individual conferences.  Starting next season, ESPN will have exclusive SEC rights and exclusive ACC rights, so those two leagues will be featured prominently on ABC throughout football season.  Then there's content like tennis, golf, the X Games, etc.  It's a lot.

With ESPN and ABC having the same owner, it makes things very easy.  Disney makes the schedule for both networks, so coordinating which game is on which channel doesn't take much.  Some games are even designated either/or, with the decision being made later on.  Likewise, sometimes they'll have "Teams TBA" on the program guide because of that flexibility.

As Disney is finding out, however, things will become much more complicated if/when they sell ABC and/or its affiliates.  They won't control the programming on ABC, so they'd need to come to an agreement with the new owners about showing ESPN sports on ABC stations.  And ABC's new owner would be well within their rights to say no.  I don't know why they would, but they could.  And if they did, that would put Disney and ESPN in a bind.

There's also the matter of Disney's recent carriage dispute with Spectrum that left nearly 15 million cable customers without Disney-owned stations (including ABC and ESPN) for three weeks.  Carriage disputes are nothing new in television, but if ESPN and ABC have different owners, what would that mean for the next one.  Would Disney-owned ESPN programming even be allowed to be shown on non-Disney-owned ABC?

Nexstar, for its part, would only be purchasing the ABC broadcast network and eight owned & operated local ABC affiliates.  And there's no reason why Nexstar wouldn't continue the existing ESPN/ABC broadcast agreements.  But it's also easy to see them wanting Disney to buy airtime on the network or something like that, which would obviously cost Disney money.  And, not to mention, figuring out who's paying the ESPN talent to appear on another network (which, granted, is very minor in the grand scheme of things).

None of this will likely do anything to change the big picture.  If Bob Iger wants to divest and thinks selling ABC is a way to do that, that's exactly what he'll do.  But the symbiotic relationship that has existed between ABC and ESPN for many years only complicates matters.  This isn't as simple as NBC shutting down NBCSN and the Olympic Channel to move it programming to other networks it already owns.  This would be just the opposite.  It would be finding a way to keep programming on a network you no longer own.

And you know that the pro leagues, college conferences and other sports organizations don't care about any of this.  They have contracts with ESPN that stipulate a certain number of events air on ABC.  As long as the conditions of that contract are met, they've got no reason to care.  How ESPN and ABC figure out scheduling isn't their problem.  It's Disney and Nexstar's.

Whatever happens, it's highly unlikely that much will change.  ABC may have a new owner, but some deal will be reached where they continue to carry sports programming under the "ESPN On ABC" banner.  The brand means too much to both.  How that ultimately ends up happening, though, could prove to be very interesting.

Getting Ready For the Free Agent Sho

Shohei Ohtani cleaned out his locker at Angel Stadium the other day.  His agent said not to read anything into it and that he'll still be with the team during its final homestand of the season, but, frankly, how could you not read into it?  It's like when Gerrit Cole spoke about the Astros in the past tense immediately after Houston lost Game 7 of the 2019 World Series.  Sure, there's a chance Ohtani will re-sign with the Angels, but it's sure looking like he won't.

Ohtani, of course, is a baseball unicorn, and he's coming off perhaps the most exceptional three-year stretch in the history of the sport.  We've never seen anything like this, and if not for what Aaron Judge did last season, Ohtani would be looking at a third straight MVP this year.  His free agency was already set to be one of the most anticipated and unique in baseball history.  Now it's about to become one of the most complicated, too.

Heading into his historic free agency, Ohtani looked poised to receive a record contract.  After all, he's two players in one!  However, he's now dealing with two injuries, one of which will almost certainly require a second Tommy John surgery, likely keeping him off the mound until 2025.  And he probably won't be available as a hitter until May at the earliest, either.  So, that record deal might not set a record after all.

Don't get me wrong.  Ohtani's still gonna command a massive contract.  Everyone saw what he did while healthy over the past three seasons, and the marketing/promotional potential that comes with signing him will be tremendous.  There will be a team (or multiple teams) that weigh the pros and cons of signing him and decide that not having him as a hitter until May or as a pitcher at all next season is still worth it.

Some fans see the Yankees as an obvious fit and think there's no reason for them not to make a run at him.  I'm not one of them.  I actually think it would be a terrible idea for the Yankees to go after Ohtani, especially for the amount of money they'd likely overpay to get him.  He can't pitch next year, so they'd still need to get another pitcher regardless, and they already have a DH.  They have a lot of money and they're the Yankees, so they're automatically gonna be tied to every high-profile free agent, but in this case, I think it'd be a mistake.

Personally, I think the Yankees' offseason focus should be on two other players--Yoshinobu Yamamoto and Cody Bellinger.  Yamamoto is a 25-year-old starting pitcher who will likely be posted this winter and will be highly sought-after.  Bellinger, meanwhile, is a left-handed hitter, and he can play center field next season while Jasson Dominguez rehabs from his Tommy John, then they could move him to left or even first base if Anthony Rizzo leaves as a free agent in 2025.

Anyway, back to Ohtani.  He's open to teams on the East Coast, which greatly increases his list of potential suitors.  An East Coast team that's recently entered the mix is Boston.  And, I have to admit, I can see it.  The only issues I foresee with it for the Red Sox are the fact that they already have Justin Turner at DH (although, I think he's on a one-year deal), and signing Ohtani would mean they'd have to keep Yoshida in left even though they aren't enamored with his defense.  Imagine the coup it would be for whoever replaces Chaim Bloom in Boston, though!

Likewise, you know one of the reasons Steve Cohen cleared out payroll at the trade deadline was so the Mets would have plenty available to go after Ohtani and still get closer to the luxury tax threshold.  The Mets are one team I can actually see making the big investment knowing the return on it won't come until 2025.  They're also the one team I can see saying "Ohtani's our regular DH," then figuring out the rest.

Or, Ohtani could just stay in Southern California and go to the Dodgers.  They have J.D. Martinez at DH, but he's capable enough in the outfield that he could move to left.  And, although he obviously wouldn't be able to help the Dodgers' rotation next season, they like to stockpile starting pitchers.  Which is a good thing, since Clayton Kershaw and Walker Buehler can't seem to stay healthy, and it looks like Julio Urias is a second starter they'll be moving on from because of his legal problems.

There's one other team I can realistically see making a serious Ohtani push.  It's the other team that was in the running for him when he first came over from Japan.  The Seattle Mariners.  He's already familiar with the city and its fans from playing against them in the division, and the Mariners have seen what he can do after facing him so much.  Plus, the Mariners are looking at a second straight playoff berth this season, something he's never experienced in six years with the Angels.

But do you really think the Angels will let him go without a fight?  They had the chance to move him at the trade deadline and at least get something out of it, but they chose not to.  Still, Trout is locked up long-term, and you know they'd love to make sure they lock up Ohtani long time, as well.  The Angels were also really the only team willing to let him do everything his way when he first came over, which is one of the big reasons why they were the team he picked when he came over.  So, they're the only organization where he knows he'll be able to do things his way.

The Angels are also the only MLB team Ohtani has ever known, which could work either for or against them.  They've had two of the most dynamic players in baseball on their roster together for the last six years and not only haven't made the playoffs, they haven't finished with a winning record.  So, we'll get to see how much value Ohtani places on that.  If winning is important, I doubt he stays with the Angels.  Although, for their part, the Angels know how much he means to their franchise, so I can see them overspending to keep him and make sure he and Trout stay together.

One other team just entered my mind.  I don't think this one is likely, but they've got plenty of money to spend, so it wouldn't surprise me, either.  The Washington Nationals.  They currently don't have a franchise player.  Problem solved!  Although, the winning thing comes into play here, as well.  Because that doesn't seem like something that'll be happening regularly in DC anytime soon.

If this were a few years ago, I'd say Ohtani will definitely sign with an AL team so that he can DH.  That's not an issue anymore, which opens up so many more possibilities.  Or does it?  We'll see how much his injuries/rehab time affect his number of suitors and/or what they end up offering him.  And, of course, where Ohtani ultimately ends up.  Which doesn't look like it'll be Anaheim.

2023 Picks, Week 2

I'm going to admit something really bad.  I couldn't stop laughing when Aaron Rodgers went down on the fourth play of the Jets' first drive on Monday night.  It's not funny and you obviously never want to see anybody get injured, especially a star player.  But I couldn't help myself.  It was the Jettiest thing that could possibly happen, and it once again screwed the NFL for going all-in on a team and having it totally backfire on them.

That's not my only takeaway from Week 1.  The 49ers and Cowboys looked mighty impressive, and the Lions really sent a message with their win over the Chiefs.  I don't know what to make of the Bengals and Seahawks after their performances.  They weren't good, but they might've just had a bad game.  We'll find out more from both of them this week.

There are plenty of other teams that left us with questions--both good and bad--after Week 1 that we'll hope to get answered in Week 2.  And, I know it's still early, but this are big games for some teams.  Historically, your odds of making the playoffs are significantly worse if you start 0-2.  Which will add a sense of urgency to several games this week.

Thursday Night: Philadelphia (Win)

Packers (1-0) at Falcons (1-0): Atlanta-Aaron who?  The Packers sure didn't seem to miss their former quarterback in Week 1.  Although, they were playing the Bears, so how much of that was the opponent?  I could probably say the same thing about the Falcons after their win over Carolina, but one of these teams will be 2-0.  I think it'll be the team that's starting the season with two straight home games.

Raiders (1-0) at Bills (0-1): Buffalo-Let's be honest.  That was a bad loss for the Bills on Monday night.  The Jets losing Aaron Rodgers aside, what happened to Buffalo's offense in the second half?  I understand the Jets have a good defense, but there was absolutely no reason for that game to go to overtime.  Maybe Josh Allen and Co. will straighten things out against the Raiders in their home opener.

Ravens (1-0) at Bengals (0-1): Baltimore-Cincinnati could be in real big trouble here.  After that uninspired performance in Cleveland, they get set for another division game in their home opener.  So, a loss won't just make them 0-2.  It'll make them 0-2 in the division.  Unfortunately, I think that's exactly where the Bengals are headed.  Because they were a mess last week.

Seahawks (0-1) at Lions (1-0): Detroit-No team made a bigger statement in Week 1 than the Lions.  They entered the season with high expectations, but there weren't many people who thought they'd go into Kansas City and beat the defending champions.  Those expectations have only grown bigger as a result.  And they'll continue to grow bigger with each successive win.

Chargers (0-1) at Titans (0-1): Tennessee-These two lost by a combined three points last week, but they were very different games.  The Titans kicked five field goals, but didn't score a touchdown against New Orleans.  The Chargers scored plenty, but also gave up 36 points against Miami.  So, it'll be interesting to see if the Titans' offense and the Chargers' defense show up for Game #2.

Bears (0-1) at Buccaneers (1-0): Tampa Bay-Game 1 post-Brady went pretty well for the Bucs, who went into Minnesota and won.  If that game was any indication, it looks like they'll be relying on their defense a lot this season.  Which isn't a bad strategy.  Especially against a team like the Chicago Bears that has no offense.

Chiefs (0-1) at Jaguars (1-0): Kansas City-Mike Tirico sure got a lot of heat from Lions fans for saying their win in the season opener came with an asterisk because Travis Kelce and Chris Jones didn't play.  I get why they thought it was an unnecessary thing to say, but he also had a point.  The Chiefs aren't the same team without those two.  Fortunately, they're both back this week.  Jacksonville on the road is a tough test, but this will be the first time this season we'll see the real Chiefs.

Colts (0-1) at Texans (0-1): Indianapolis-Last season, these two tied in Houston in Week 1.  It was actually kind of a fitting result.  They were both so bad, they couldn't even beat each other.  Then when they met again in the season finale, it was a one-point game.  Fortunately, the Colts look like they're a little better this season.  The Texans, however, are still just as bad.  As a result, I say Indy beats them.

49ers (1-0) at Rams (1-0): San Francisco-If the 49ers now have an offense to with that elite defense, look out!  I know it was only one game, but it was on the road in an early game after a cross country trip.  The Rams, meanwhile, surprised me last week.  Not necessarily because they won, but because of how easy it was.  It probably won't be so easy this week against a team that usually beats them.

Giants (0-1) at Cardinals (0-1): Arizona-Well, things can't exactly go any worse for the Giants than they did last week!  And, I have more good news for them...they're playing the Cardinals this week!  It's silly to call a Week 2 game a "must win," but it does feel a little bit like that for the Giants.  Their early season schedule is so difficult that they can't afford to lose their only game in their first six that isn't against a playoff team from last season.

Jets (1-0) at Cowboys (1-0): Dallas-The winners of last week's Met Life Stadium semifinals meet in Dallas for the championship of that little tournament.  I kid, of course, but it is odd scheduling.  The Giants and Jets are both at home then, not just both on the road, but playing 4:00 games opposite each other.  Anyway, the Jets go back to life without Aaron Rodgers.  Although, they proved last week that their defense will keep them in any game, and for them to earn the win against Buffalo even after Rodgers went down says a lot about them.  With that being said, facing a Cowboys team that completely dominated the Giants in all phases last week, on the road, should be quite a challenge.

Commanders (1-0) at Broncos (0-1): Denver-Sean Payton's Denver debut didn't go quite as well as the Broncos hoped.  Not only did they lose to the Raiders, they struggled offensively.  Washington, meanwhile, had its own struggles before hanging on to beat Arizona.  Still, a win's a win, so they'll happily take it.  This week, they won't be so lucky.

Dolphins (1-0) at Patriots (0-1): New England-An interesting Sunday night selection to be sure.  Especially this early in the season.  But Miami made the playoffs last season, New England's always a draw, and this rivalry can get pretty intense.  So, I get it.  Starting the season with back-to-back road games.  On opposite coasts.  With the second one at night.  Against a division rival that's had two straight home games.  There's a lot working against the Dolphins here.

Saints (1-0) at Panthers (0-1): New Orleans-We've got two Monday night games this week, starting with an NFC South divisional matchup in Charlotte.  As Bryce Young showed last week, he'll go through a lot of growing pains this season.  Which is to be expected for a rookie.  His home debut should go slightly better than last week, but the Saints should seize the opportunity to go 2-0.

Browns (1-0) at Steelers (0-1): Pittsburgh-Cleveland's win over Cincinnati was perhaps the most surprising result of Week 1.  Now they get another division game against a rival--the Steelers.  Pittsburgh had trouble getting anything going against San Francisco, but the same could be said for every AFC team in an interconference matchup (the NFC went 4-0 against the AFC in Week 1).  They should be able to right the ship against a much more familiar foe.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 10-7

The Tennis GOAT

It's a pretty well-known fact around these parts that I'm an unabashed Roger Federer fan.  Even though he's retired, Roger's still my guy.  That's not gonna change.  One thing has changed, though.  I no longer think Roger Federer is the greatest men's tennis player of all-time.  That's Novak Djokovic.

None of this is meant as a knock on Roger.  Far from it actually.  Nor is it meant as a knock on Rafael Nadal, who, as you know, I'm very much not a fan of.  We've been spoiled by watching three all-time greats going head-to-head-to-head for a decade and a half.  But, as great as Roger and Rafa both are, the Djoker is the GOAT.

Federer was the first men's player to win 20 Grand Slams.  Then Nadal passed him.  Then Djokovic passed them both.  His US Open triumph was his 24th Grand Slam title, tying Margaret Court, who played in a completely different era and didn't have two other all-time greats as contemporaries, for the all-time record.  And if you think he's stopping at 24, you're an idiot!  (I do realize we said the same thing about Serena Williams when she got to 23 and she never won another, but the situations are entirely different.)

Djokovic's numbers speak for themselves.  And it's not just his six years' worth of Grand Slam titles, either.  Although, that's a good place to start.  Djokovic has won 24 Grand Slam finals.  He's also lost 12.  That's 36 career Grand Slam finals!  He's played in 72 career Grand Slam tournaments.  Which means he's made it to the finals in half of them!

And, if you think about it, those numbers could very well be higher already.  Because he's had a few high-profile missed opportunities.  In 2020, there was no Wimbledon, and he was disqualified at the US Open after accidentally hitting a linesperson with an errant ball.  And let's not forget how he couldn't play in either the Australian or US Open last year because of his vaccination status.  He also missed the 2017 US Open due to injury, so that's a year's worth of Grand Slams he hasn't played.

Another thing that makes his career so remarkable is when you take into consideration how long it took Djokovic to win his first.  He first came on the scene when Federer and Nadal were in the middle of their primes, and it took him until the 2008 Australian Open to finally win one.  Then he didn't win another until the 2011 Australian Open.  And there was another two-year span between the 2016 French Open and 2018 Wimbledon where he didn't win one.  So, if you take that 2008 Aussie Open out, he's won 23 Grand Slams in a 13-year period (with a two-year winless gap thrown in).  That's mighty impressive!

One of my biggest criticisms of Nadal is that 14 of his 22 Grand Slam titles have come in the same tournament--the French Open.  Federer, meanwhile, only won the French Open once--mainly because Nadal won it every year.  Djokovic has won all four at least three times each, and he's been to the final of each Grand Slam at least seven times.  He truly has no weak surface!

What's crazy, too, is that he's twice come within a match of becoming the first man to complete a calendar year Grand Slam since 1969.  Two years ago, Djokovic was 27-0 in Grand Slam matches before losing to Daniil Medvedev in the US Open final.  This year, he wasn't just a match short.  He was a set short.  Djokovic lost the Wimbledon final in five to Carlos Alcaraz.  He wins that fifth set, he wins the Grand Slam.

Then there's the Olympics.  That's the one glaring hole in resume.  He's played in four of the and never made the final.  He's played for bronze three times, but only won the bronze medal match once.  In 2021, Djokovic went to Tokyo with the Golden Slam still on the table, only to lose in the semifinals, then again in the bronze medal match.  Paris will likely be his final chance for the one thing he's missing.  Olympic gold.

That's the one thing Djokovic is missing that Federer and Nadal both have.  Nadal won singles gold in 2008.  Federer lost the 2012 gold medal match (at Wimbledon) to Andy Murray, but does have a doubles gold.  You can bet that the Olympic gold medal will be right at the top of Djokovic's list of goals for 2024.

At this point in his career, Djokovic is focusing almost exclusively on the major tournaments.  He's earned that right.  Especially because of how much playing in a Grand Slam tournament takes out of you.  You need to win seven best-of-time matches in two weeks, and the tournaments take place year-round on completely different surfaces in completely different conditions.  He's done that twenty-four times (and counting)!

Ultimately, though, the thing that puts Djokovic over the top for me is his longevity.  When he burst on the scene, it was the Roger & Rafa Show, and it took him a little while to break through.  He soon made it the Big Three, an era we've been spoiled to witness where they monopolized the Grand Slam trophies for a decade and a half (they have 66 Grand Slam titles between them...that's 16 1/2 years).  He didn't just make it a Big Three, he rose to the top, leaving the other two looking up at him.

Now Federer is retired and Nadal will be joining him in retirement next year.  Yet Djokovic remains.  He's now the veteran taking on the next generation of tennis talent.  Guys like Carlos Alcaraz and Daniil Medvedev and Alexander Zverev.  The 36-year-old Djokovic hasn't just held them off (for the most part), he's still at the top of his game.  With no signs of slowing down for the next few years.

So, that's why I'm fully accepting of the fact that Roger Federer is no longer the men's tennis GOAT (if he ever was to begin with).  Novak Djokovic has tied the all-time record for Grand Slam championships.  And there's plenty more where that came from.  When all's said and done, there will be no doubt as to who's the greatest men's tennis champion ever.  If it wasn't clear already, that is.

The Saga Continues

All of the drama surrounding the Pac-12 over the past six weeks really has been fascinating to watch play out.  And I don't think that drama's gonna stop anytime soon.  Stanford and Cal, two of the remaining four, were thrown a lifeline by the ACC.  It was an offer that had to be made and had to be accepted.  On both sides.

It still completely blows my mind that nobody wanted Stanford in the initial rounds of Pac-12 raiding.  I really don't know what boxes they don't check.  It's an academic power located not just in a major city, it's in freakin' San Francisco!  They have a ton of sports and are good at all of them.  What am I missing here?

When all the dust settled, Stanford was the only prize remaining to be claimed.  And wherever Stanford went, Cal was going too.  It made sense for them to be a package deal, just like it made sense for UCLA/USC, Washington/Oregon and Arizona/Arizona State to be package deals.  So, whoever wanted Stanford was also getting Cal.  They went in knowing that.  And, if you think about it, that actually wasn't a bad deal.

Up until now, the ACC had been the only Power 5 conference sitting out the latest round of realignment.  The reason for that is the ACC's grant-in-rights, which keeps the 15 members bound to the league thru the 2035-36 school year.  However, the guaranteed money each school receives from that grant-in-rights pales in comparison to what SEC and Big Ten schools will be getting in their new media rights deals.  That made schools like Florida State and Clemson very unhappy, and they made that known.

Should the SEC seek to expand again so that they can match the Big Ten with 18 teams, Florida State and Clemson would be the most logical candidates to make the jump.  You know both schools would be interested and likely actively seek out SEC membership, especially because of how much more money SEC schools will get per year from the conference's media rights deal.  The ACC knew they had to find a way to make up the revenue gap or risk losing Florida State and Clemson.  Their solution was creative, and it was enough to appease Florida State and Clemson, while also helping to ensure the ACC survives should they leave.

The additions of Cal, Stanford and SMU will bring the ACC to 18 members.  That's the same as the Big Ten.  The SEC and Big 12 will both have 16 next season.  Had the ACC not made the three additions and the SEC did eventually take Florida State and Clemson, that would've theoretically dropped the conference to 13, the fewest among the remaining Power 4.  Now, even if they do eventually leave, the ACC will still have 16.

Is it weird that two schools in California will be members of the Atlantic Coast Conference next season?  Absolutely!  But geography is no longer a concern in major-conference college sports.  Also, not for nothing, the Atlanta Braves were in the NL West for years, and the Arizona Cardinals were in the NFC East, so it's not exactly like geography was relevant to the pros, either!  (I also love it how the Pac-12's original name was the Pacific Coast Conference, so Stanford and Cal will have been members of the conferences along the coast of both oceans!)

Stanford and Cal had to take a reduced share in order to join the ACC, but their options were either that or not being in a Power 4 football conference.  It was a no-brainer!  And they're still getting more than SMU, which will receive no ACC revenue for the first seven years.  SMU is essentially joining the ACC for free, a concession they were willing to make in order to get back into a major conference.  (Yahoo did a great, in-depth article about SMU's pursuit over the last year and a half, when they were simultaneously courting the ACC, Big 12 and Pac-12, hoping for an invite to one of them.)

With Stanford and Cal solidifying their long-term future and guaranteeing themselves a seat at the table, they simultaneously determined the future of the Pac-12 as a viable conference.  Any attempt to rebuild the league through expansion would've centered around those core four institutions.  Now it's just Oregon State and Washington State, who've definitely drawn the short straw in all of this.  Or have they?

According to the current Pac-12 bylaws, Oregon State and Washington State own the Pac-12 brand.  As they understand it, they're entitled to split all of the conference's assets 50-50 (they'd also be responsible for all of the conference's liabilities).  If they were to disband the conference, however, whatever's left would be split among all 12 schools.  So, you can understand why they'd want to keep the Pac-12 alive in some form.  And the brand does still have value, even if that value is significantly reduced.

That's why they got a court order preventing the Pac-12 from holding a board meeting (with all 12 members) later this week.  Frankly, I've gotta say, I agree with Washington State and Oregon State on this one.  They're the only ones left.  Thus, they should be the only ones making decisions about the conference.  The other 10 members have announced their intention to withdraw from the league, so why should they have any say in matters involving the Pac-12's future?  Especially when that future doesn't involve them.  It only involves Washington State and Oregon State.

Washington State and Oregon State's remaining options are limited.  The general consensus is that they'll assimilate into the Mountain West.  But will they join the Mountain West?  Or will it be a reverese merger where it's the Mountain West that ceases to exist and all 11 of its members join Oregon State and Washington State in a reimagined Pac-12?  (Should that happen, it would be interesting to see if they could convince Hawaii, which plays football in the Mountain West and everything else in the Big West, to become a full conference member.)

Both remaining Pac-12 schools and the Mountain West have expressed interest in some sort of merger, which makes it even more likely that'll end up being the ultimate solution.  Whether it's called the "Mountain West," the "Pac-whatever" or something else, they're also in agreement that they want current Mountain West Commissioner Gloria Nevarez to be in charge of the league.  (Which really tells you all you need to know about Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff.)

So, even though the Pac-12 as we know it will be no more after this school year, the league isn't officially "dead" yet.  Oregon State and Washington State went from the odd men out to suddenly holding a lot of power.  Even if they keep the Pac-12 alive, it won't be a Power 5 conference anymore, which is unfortunate.  But the Pac-12 name has such history.  It doesn't deserve to suffer the same fate as the Southwest Conference.  Oregon State and Washington State are now the stewards of that history, and they're doing everything they can to make sure that doesn't happen.  Here's hoping they succeed!

Achieving the Objective

The FIBA Basketball World Cup just ended, with Germany winning the gold over Serbia.  The United States lost the bronze medal game to Canada in overtime and finished fourth, marking the second straight World Cup in which they didn't medal.  While some would see this as a disappointment and/or a sign that the rest of the world has caught up, only one of those two things is true.  The world actually caught up a while ago.  As for whether this fourth-place showing is a "disappointment," that's a matter of debate.

Sure, they aren't happy about the three losses in the tournament and there are definitely things that need to be improved next summer in Paris, but winning the World Cup wasn't the objective.  It would've been nice.  Don't get me wrong.  But, ultimately, the goal was to qualify for the Olympics, which they did by finishing as one of the two best teams from the Americas.  Now they can focus on the Olympics, where a USA "A" team featuring a roster made up pretty much exclusively of All-NBA-caliber players will take the court.

That, frankly, is the way it's going to be.  With the way the tournaments are scheduled in back-to-back years (an idiotic decision by FIBA that I'll get into in a little bit), countries can't expect to have their top NBA players available for both the World Cup and the Olympics the next summer, so they have to choose which is more important.  The U.S. cares way more about the Olympics than the World Cup, so their decision is pretty easy.

It was the same thing four years ago, when their effort at the World Cup actually could be considered a disappointment.  They lost back-to-back games in the quarterfinals and classification round, ultimately finishing seventh, their worst-ever showing at a World Cup.  However, just like this year, they were one of two teams from the Americas to make the quarterfinals, locking up an Olympic berth and avoiding the Olympic Qualifying Tournament.

When FIBA moved the World Cup to the year before the Olympics, they tied Olympic qualifying into it.  The top two teams at the World Cup from the Americas and Europe qualify directly for the Olympics, along with the top team from Asia and Africa, and the higher finisher of Australia and New Zealand.  Throw in the host country and you've got eight of the 12 Olympic berths already secured.  Everybody else has to play an Olympic Qualifying Tournament roughly a month before the Games for one of the other four spots.

Avoiding that OQT is (and should be) goal No. 1.  If you have to play in one, you need to assemble your Olympic team a month earlier for a winner-take-all tournament just to get to the Olympics.  If you even can, considering the NBA Playoffs will still be going on.  Eight countries don't have to worry about any of that.  The United States, Canada, Germany, Serbia, Australia, South Sudan, Japan and France get to just sit there and wait.

France is another example of a team that did not care at all about this World Cup.  As the host country, they were already guaranteed an Olympic berth.  They beat the U.S. in the group stage in Tokyo, where they ended up winning the silver, and are a definite medal contender in Paris.  In fact, it would surprise absolutely no one if they end up winning the gold.  At the World Cup, France didn't even get out of the group stage.  That won't change anybody's opinion about their chances at the Olympics.

Next year, you can expect France to have a loaded team that includes the likes of Rudy Gobert, Nicolas Batum, Evan Fournier and Victor Wembanyama (as well as maybe Joel Embiid).  None of them played at the World Cup.  Why would they?  France is already qualified and hosting the Olympics, which will obviously be the priority.  So let them worry about the 82-game NBA season plus playoffs before making a run next year.

Likewise, it would be unreasonable to expect the United States to field an "A" team in back-to-back summers with an entire NBA season in between.  Throw in another NBA season after the Olympics, and that's essentially two full years without a break.  So, can you blame the U.S. for sending a "B" (or some might even say a "C") team to the World Cup?  I can't.

In Paris, meanwhile, we'll see the absolute best team the United States can send.  That will include, presumably, players like Stephen Curry, Kevin Durant and James Harden, to name just a few.  It should be even better than the team that went to Tokyo, where the delayed Games and delayed NBA season ran right up against each other, resulting in some players (understandably) opting out and others like Devin Booker going immediately from the NBA Finals to Tokyo without any break at all.  Fortunately, that won't be an issue this time.

At the same time, I get why people have high expectations of the United States in basketball regardless of who's on the roster.  It's like Canada and hockey.  The NBA has all of the best players in the world, but the majority of them are still overwhelmingly Americans.  So, even a "B" or "C" American team will still be awfully competitive.  (Good enough for fourth place, as it turns out.)  The rest of the world has caught up, though, so it's not the guarantee it once was, which isn't a criticism.  It's just a fact.

Countries like the United States have the luxury of being able to field a "B" team that's still good enough to qualify for the Olympics at the World Cup.  A lot of nations don't, though.  They need their NBA guys because they aren't good enough to qualify without them.  But that puts an undue burden on players like Slovenia's Luka Doncic, who also happens to be pretty important to the Dallas Mavericks.

Frankly, that's on FIBA.  Their World Cup used to be in the same year as soccer's, but FIBA decided there was too much confusion and wanted theirs to be just as big, so they moved theirs back year, which puts it back-to-back with the Olympics.  But expecting A-team rosters full of NBA players to be available for both is unrealistic.  Some will be willing and able to play in both, but many won't.

I'm not saying every country went into the World Cup with the same mentality.  Some clearly did want to win, and congratulations to Germany on winning the championship.  But, for some countries, winning would've been an added bonus.  Countries like the United States came to the World Cup with another goal in mind.  And the Americans achieved their objective.  They qualified for the Paris Olympics.  If they don't win gold next summer, however, that'll be a totally different story!

2023 Picks, Week 1

Welcome to a new NFL season and my first weekly picks post of 2023.  For those of you who are new to this, I don't care about the spread.  I only care about who actually wins the game.  The standings aren't based on who covers the spread.  They're based on who wins.

Also, while I'll pick the Thursday night game every week, I normally won't post the full selections until right before the Sunday games.  The only exceptions are Thanksgiving (for obvious reasons) and Week 1 (because that's the first game of the season).  So, then, without further ado, here we go...

Lions at Chiefs: Kansas City-There's a lot of buzz around Detroit.  So much so that the Lions were picked to play in the season kickoff game.  NFC North favorites or not, going into Arrowhead and facing the defending champs the night they raise their banner was gonna be a challenge regardless.  Last year, the Bills went into SoFi and beat the Rams on opening night, setting the stage for both of their seasons.  That won't happen to the Chiefs this year.  Even if Travis Kelce and Chris Jones don't play, they should begin their defense with a win.

Panthers at Falcons: Atlanta-My pick in the NFC South this season is Atlanta.  I can't really explain why.  On paper, both the Panthers and Saints might be a little stronger.  But I think the Falcons will surprise.  And this is their first chance to prove it.  Carolina will obviously have No. 1 pick Bryce Young under center in his debut.  Just a hunch, but I think it could be a long one.

Bengals at Browns: Cincinnati-After two straight AFC Championship Game appearances, expectations are sky-high in Cincinnati.  And rightfully so.  Of course, a lot of that depends on Joe Burrow's health.  It appears he's a go for Week 1, though, when the Bengals head north to face their instate rivals.  The Browns are one of the weaker teams in the league.  The Bengals are one of the better teams.  See where I'm going with this?

Jaguars at Colts: Jacksonville-It's crazy to think that we go into the season with Jacksonville not just favored in the AFC South, but considered one of the stronger teams across the NFL.  Of course, having said that, the Jaguars will probably end up finishing 6-11/7-10.  Even still, they're better than the Colts.  It's weird how Jacksonville always seemed to beat Indianapolis even when the Jaguars weren't good.  That alone should be enough to pick Jacksonville.

Buccaneers at Vikings: Minnesota-Last season, they were both division champions.  Minnesota won the NFC North by winning a lot of close games.  Tampa Bay won the NFC South with a sub-.500 record.  Then Tom Brady retired.  It could be a long season in Tampa.  And, I know I'm in a minority, but I'm a believer in the Vikings.  Even if I wasn't, I'd like them here.

Titans at Saints: Tennessee-I'm very interested to see what happens in this one.  The new-look Saints have Derek Carr and a weak NFC South.  The Titans started off great last season, but fell off down the stretch and Jacksonville surpassed them for the division title.  I actually wasn't sure which way to go here.  Because I can see either team winning.  Ultimately, I decided to go with the Titans, who I feel are just a bit stronger overall.

49ers at Steelers: San Francisco-San Francisco is a very popular Super Bowl pick this season, mainly because of that outstanding defense.  The 49ers begin the season with what could be a challenging trip to Pittsburgh.  This one will likely be low scoring, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a defensive touchdown or two.  In the end, though, I think San Francisco will have just enough to pull it out.

Cardinals at Commanders: Washington-Arizona is arguably the weakest team in football (although, the Texans might give them a run for their money).  Going into Washington for the season opener isn't a terrible matchup for them, and it does give them a chance to prove some of the doubters wrong.  I don't think it will, though.  After all the offseason tumult, the Commanders must be thrilled to be getting back on the field.  They'll be even more thrilled when they win their opener.

Texans at Ravens: Baltimore-Baltimore enters the season chasing Cincinnati.  Which is a little weird.  Because the Ravens nearly won the division over the Bengals last season.  Knowing where they stand, though, they have a chance to make a statement in Week 1.  At the very least, they know losing to Houston at home is something they simply cannot do.

Packers at Bears: Green Bay-For the first time in 30 years, the Packers enter a season without a future Hall of Fame quarterback (although, in fairness to Jordan Love, he might be, too).  Times were good during all those years with Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers.  Times will be much tougher in 2023.  Fortunately for them, they open the season against their archrivals.  The Bears are not a team that instills much confidence in me.  As a result, I've got the Packers starting 1-0.

Raiders at Broncos: Denver-Sean Payton's debut as Broncos coach comes at home against the Raiders.  It's been a while since there's been excitement in Denver (there was last season, and we saw how well that turned out).  While I'd temper those expectations a little, this is a good opening matchup for them.  There's still a lot of season left to play, but a 1-0 start is a 1-0 start.

Eagles at Patriots: Philadelphia-How will the Eagles follow up coming thisclose in the Super Bowl?  Chances are, they'll be like the Bengals, who got back to the AFC Championship Game last season.  Philadelphia is too good to come crashing down.  In fact, there are a lot of people picking a Super Bowl rematch.  They'll get their first chance to show us they shouldn't be messed with after going into Foxboro and starting the season with a win over the Patriots.

Dolphins at Chargers: Miami-The schedule-makers were very clever in putting so many games between playoff teams in Week 1.  This one is between a pair of AFC wild cards--the Dolphins and Chargers.  Last season, the Chargers reversed their trend of losing a lot of close games late, while Miami continued what it started building at the end of the 2021 season.  Which one gets 2023 started off right?  Call me crazy, but I think it'll be Miami.

Rams at Seahawks: Seattle-Can Seattle repeat last season's playoff run?  That's the big question.  The Seahawks were a bit of a surprise in 2022.  Now it's their job to do it again.  The Rams were also a bit of a surprise last season.  For the opposite reason.  That was quite a fall a year after winning the Super Bowl!  Sadly, I don't see things getting any better this year.  At least not to start.  They're not beating the Seahawks in Seattle.

Cowboys at Giants: Dallas-This was the season-opening Sunday night game every season for a while.  Then the Giants weren't good for a few years, so the NFL couldn't justify giving them a marquee spot in Week 1.  But, with them both making the playoffs last season, the matchup is back.  I've been openly skeptical about whether the Giants can repeat what they did last year, and this will be a big early test.  They've never beaten a Dak Prescott-led Cowboys team.  If they win, we'll know they're for real.  Dallas isn't as good as last year, but is still one of the better teams in the NFC.

Bills at Jets: Buffalo-Two primetime games at MetLife Stadium in Week 1.  The Monday nighter is Game 1 of the Aaron Rodgers Experience, with the Jets taking on the Bills.  Like the Lions, the new-look Jets are getting thrown right into the fire with a matchup against one of the top teams in the league.  This could be a very telling game.  Even if the Bills win, as most people expect, how good of a game will it be?  That's really what will tell us whether all this hype around the Jets is deserved or not.

2023 NFL Season Preview, Part II (NFC)

Last season, after a few years in the doldrums, the NFC East was back in a big way.  Three of the four teams made the playoffs, and the one that didn't, Washington, had a better record than the NFC South champion.  The three NFC East teams all won at least one playoff game and made up 75 percent of the Divisional round, too.  As a result, we're back to the old days where the NFC East is featured in primetime a lot!  Although, I do think the Giants and maybe even the Cowboys will come back to Earth a little bit, the Eagles aren't going anywhere.

Neither are the 49ers, who I will finally admit are very good.  They still need to figure out their quarterback situation, though.  Until that happens, I can't truly call them "elite."  So, it's looking like another NFC Championship Game loss could be in the cards for San Francisco.  Unless, of course, Brock Purdy can stabilize the position.

The Jets may be the NFL's "It" team coming into this season, but the NFC has an "It" team of its own.  The Detroit Lions.  Detroit was tremendous down the stretch last year and expectations for the Lions are high.  So high, in fact, that they were chosen as the Chiefs' opponent for the NFL Kickoff Game.  Like the Jets, I think talk of a division title for the Lions might be a little premature (although, in the NFC North, who knows?).  Can they make the playoffs, though?  Absolutely!

As for who else will make the playoffs, that's anyone's guess.  I've got Philadelphia, San Francisco and Dallas as "locks," but that's it.  You really could pull a name out of a hat in the South, and can the Seahawks and Giants have the same type of year as they did in 2022?  Ditto with the Vikings.  And, on the other side, the Rams and Packers.  Lots of questions that need to be answered surrounding a number of teams.

NFC East: Even though all four teams finished .500 or better last season, two stood out.  Philadelphia and Dallas.  The Eagles and Cowboys battled each other for the division title pretty much all year, with Philadelphia eventually coming out on top en route to an NFC championship and almost adding a second Lombardi Trophy.  The Eagles are just as good, if not better, this season, and I'm not sure the Cowboys are as good.  Thus, Philadelphia is my pick to win the division.

Then there's the Giants and Commanders.  Brian Daboll was the NFL Coach of the Year last season after leading that incredible Giants turnaround.  The challenge is doing again now that it won't be unexpected.  Washington, meanwhile, was in the headlines all summer for non-football reasons.  Dan Snyder finally got booted as owner and there was a push to change the team name back to "Redskins."  The Commanders' new owner has said he won't do that, though, and is probably happy that the focus can now shift to football.

NFC North: Minnesota won a lot of close games last year, which propelled the Vikings to a 13-4 record and a pretty easy division title.  I've seen very few, if any, predictions that they'll be able to do it a second year in a row and wondered "Why not?"  This is a down year in the division and they're still the best team in it.  Even without Adam Thielen, they've still got Kirk Cousins and Justin Jefferson.  I don't think Minnesota repeating as division champs is unreasonable at all.

Part of the reason for that is just look at the other three teams.  As I already said, I'm not totally buying the hype surrounding the Lions.  I think Detroit can and will get a wild card, but the Packers will likely struggle as they navigate the first year of their post-Aaron Rodgers existence.  This isn't like when Favre left.  They didn't have the ready-to-go replacement this time.  And do I really need to say anything about the Bears?  They had their random once-every-five-years playoff appearance in 2020, so we're still a couple years away from the next one.

NFC South: Now that Tom Brady is retired, the NFC South is completely up for grabs.  It was close last season, too.  In fact, it was a three-way tie for second at 7-10, only one game behind the division-winning Bucs.  And Tampa won the division at 8-9.  So, just one or two things going differently in one or two games could've changed the fortunes of all four teams.

One thing I do feel confident in saying is that Tampa Bay's reign atop the division will come to an end.  The Saints have Derek Carr now, and that could easily be enough to put them over the top.  And we'll see if Carolina's quarterback carousel has finally come to an end now that they have No. 1 pick Bryce Young under center.  For some reason, though, I like the Atlanta Falcons to come out of the South.  I'm not entirely sure why.  I just think Atlanta is the least-flawed of the four teams.  New Orleans will be right behind them.

NFC West: There are two NFC West teams where we pretty much know where they stand.  The 49ers have an elite defense and have been one of the better teams in the NFC for the last few years.  The Cardinals are on the complete other end of the spectrum.  Arizona isn't very good and is more likely to be in the conversation for the No. 1 (which they would likely trade since they won't take the USC quarterback when they already have so much invested in Kyler Murray).

I have no idea about either the Seahawks or Rams, though.  Nobody thought Seattle would be relevant last season.  Well, as it turns out, the Seahawks knew what they were doing by trading Russell Wilson.  Geno Smith turned into a Pro Bowler and led them to the playoffs.  Can they possibly repeat that?  Likewise, the Rams had quite the fall a year after winning the Super Bowl.  Granted, they went all-in to win at home, but I don't think even they expected it to be as swift and as bad as it was.  Can they rebound or was last year the start of a run of mediocrity?

Playoff Seeds: 1. 49ers (13-4), 2. Eagles (13-4), 3. Vikings (11-6), 4. Falcons (10-7), 5. Cowboys (12-5), 6. Seahawks (11-6), 7. Lions (10-7)
A repeat of last season's NFC Championship Game between the Eagles and 49ers could very well be in the offing.  Hopefully, in the rematch, the 49ers won't be left without a quarterback and the game is actually competitive.  Not only do I think it will, I think the 49ers will win it this time.  But wait, didn't I say at the beginning of the post that San Francisco can't be "elite" until the QB situation is settled?  Yes I did.  While I don't think it'll be completely settled, I think it'll be settled enough.

Super Bowl LVIII Pick: Kansas City over San Francisco
Can you believe it's been 20 years since we had a repeat Super Bowl champion?  Not since the Patriots in 2003 & 2004.  That was so long ago it was my senior year of college and first year of grad school!  Anyway, the last time Kansas City had a chance to repeat, they got their butts kicked by the Tampa Bay defense.  They won't be playing the home team in the Super Bowl this time, though, which I think will make a big difference.  The Chiefs end that drought and win their second straight Super Bowl.

2023 NFL Season Preview, Part I (AFC)

Remember last year, when all the preseason hype was about the Broncos after they traded for Russell Wilson?  Denver ended up in primetime pretty much every week in September and October, and we all saw how well that worked out.  The Broncos were bad, boring, not at all entertaining, and, as it turned out, irrelevant.  You'd think the NFL learned the error of their ways, but nope!

This year's Broncos are the New York Jets.  Aaron Rodgers made sure of that.  I get it.  He's a media circus all on his own, and him deciding he wanted to play for the Jets and nobody else only added to that.  Then they got picked to be on Hard Knocks, which, again, makes total sense.  Then they were given a ton of primetime games, which, again, was to be expected.  But this is still the Jets we're talking about.  And this is still Aaron Rodgers we're talking about.  So, let's calm down all those Super Bowl predictions.

Now, there's a big difference between the 2023 Jets and the 2022 Broncos.  This year's overhyped "it" team was at least decent last year.  So, even though the Super Bowl expectations are a bit unrealistic, it's not out of the question to think the Jets can be a playoff team.  It would be a stretch to say they can win the division over the Bills.  But 10-7 and a wild card is definitely believable.

As it is, the top four teams in the AFC haven't shown any signs of giving up their hold anytime soon.  The Chiefs, Bills, Bengals and Jaguars all have young, franchise quarterbacks.  All four won their division last year.  All four could very easily win their division again this year.  And next year.  And the year after that.  Simply put, the AFC is very top-heavy, and there doesn't seem to be many teams capable of breaking through that stranglehold.

So, with four playoff spots already spoken for, that leaves everybody else fighting for the three wild cards.  And I actually think that'll be a competitive race.  Because really, only the Browns, Texans and Colts seem like playoff longshots.  OK, maybe the Raiders, too.  But the other eight?  None of them would be surprising.

AFC East: Last season, the Bills won their third straight division title and Miami joined them in the playoffs.  There's no reason to think Buffalo won't make it four in a row.  As for the Dolphins getting a wild card again?  That's a little more up in the air.  Not because Miami is worse than last year.  Because they're really not.  It's just that other teams have gotten better and the Dolphins aren't one of the seven best in the AFC.

The Jets, however, are.  They were close enough last year that Rodgers just might be enough to put them over the top.  Again, I don't think there's any way they win the division.  I also don't see any way they don't get a wild card.  As for the Patriots, I think this could be a very similar season as last year.  They made the playoffs in 2021, just missed last season, and will likely be in that position again.  They'll finish in the 8-9/9-8/10-7 range and be in the playoff mix, but fall just short.

AFC North: I'm curious to find out what Joe Burrow's status is and how much that will affect Cincinnati's season.  Because as he goes, so go the Bengals.  And if he's out for any period of time, that puts the AFC North up for grabs.  Although, the Bengals have proven to be good enough that they can actually weather losing Burrow for a game or two.  Anything more than that, though, look out for the Ravens!

Baltimore's window is definitely closing, but it isn't closed yet, so expect them to do what they always do.  Not score a lot of points, but still find a way to win games and end up in the think of the race come December.  The Steelers, incredibly, kept up Mike Tomlin's streak of .500 seasons last year when no one thought they would.  Is there any reason to think it won't continue this season?  Then there's the Cleveland Browns.  They surprised me last season by not being as bad as I thought they would.  My expectations aren't high again.

AFC South: It's crazy that we're talking about the start of a potential Jacksonville Jaguars dynasty, right?  This is a team that had the No. 1 pick in back-to-back years, and now suddenly we're talking about them as a consistent contender.  Why?  Because of what they did down the stretch last season to win the division, then what they did in their first playoff game against the Chargers.  Throw in the fact that they're in a weak division, and suddenly it doesn't sound so crazy.

Of course, another reason for the Jaguars' ascendance is because of how badly the Titans struggled last December and January.  I can easily see Tennessee bouncing back, though.  That Jaguars-Titans game in Nashville in Week 18 could be for the division.  The Colts and Texans, meanwhile, are both on the "not good" list.  They seem far likelier to compete for the No. 1 pick (and the chance to draft the USC quarterback) than the AFC South title.

AFC West: Unlike last year, when bringing in Russell Wilson only served to make the Broncos worse, Sean Payton's presence in Denver actually will make a massive difference.  The Broncos' last playoff game was Super Bowl 50, and their fan base has been starved for a winner ever since then.  The payoff won't come this season, but they'll be much closer to what they used to be.  And, if they can win some of those close games, they could be in the mix.

Kansas City is still the kings of this division, though.  And that ain't changing anytime soon.  The Chiefs' current run sure reminds you of the Brady Patriots, doesn't it?  Does anyone actually expect them NOT to win the AFC West and put up a 13-4/14-3 record again?  If the Chargers can do it again, I'll be impressed.  Last season, they finally won all of those close games and made the playoffs.  The either win them and go 10-7 or lose them and go 8-9.  Should be the same thing again.  The Raiders will have a completely different look now that they've moved on from Derek Carr.  They aren't as good as the other three teams in the division, though, so I'm expecting the only playoff game played in Las Vegas to be the Super Bowl.

Playoff Seeds: 1. Chiefs (14-3), 2. Bills (12-5), 3. Bengals (11-6), 4. Jaguars (10-7), 5. Ravens (10-7), 6. Jets (10-7), 7. Titans (9-8)
Yes, a lot of that looks awfully familiar.  There's a reason for that.  Until those four are knocked off their perch, it's a safe bet to think they'll do it again.  Which could make for a fun January!  And, come January, expect the AFC's top team to continue its run.  The Chiefs go back to the Super Bowl for the fourth time in five years.