No More NIT As We Knew It

The best thing about the NCAA Tournament is the upsets.  Every year, there's at least one mid-major school or champion of a small conference that beats a Power 6 team or, even if they don't get the win, they make it a game.  There's always that Cinderella team that America falls in love with, and it's usually a team from outside the Power 6 where the country is finding out just how good they are.  As it turns out, there are some pretty good teams outside the six major conferences and Gonzaga.

There are also plenty of good teams that lose in their conference tournament at don't get to play in the Big Dance as a result.  Those teams were always guaranteed to at least play in the postseason, though, since the NIT gave an automatic bid to any regular season conference champion that didn't make the NCAA Tournament.  It was a nice reward for a good season that no one seemed to have an issue with and most actually agreed was a good thing.

So, of course, leave it to the NCAA to take something good and mess with it.  Because those NIT auto bids for regular season champions are now a thing of the past.  Instead, they've been replaced by something no one asked for.  The "top two teams" from each of the six major conferences that didn't make the tournament, regardless of record, will not only be guaranteed an NIT bid, they'll also be guaranteed a home game.

Who exactly was clamoring for the mediocre ninth- and 10th-place teams in the Big Ten or 10th- and 11-place teams in the ACC to be in the NIT over a 28-4 Conference USA team that lost in the semifinals on a buzzer beater?  That Conference USA would actually want to play in the NIT, by the way.  While the Power 6 team almost certainly would not.  Especially if that team is at or below .500 overall.  (North Carolina actually declined to even be considered for the NIT last season.)

And what if they fired their coach?  Or if they have players who are either entering the NBA Draft or the transfer portal?  It's already become a pretty regular thing for NFL Draft prospects to opt out of playing in their team's bowl game.  Why would it be any different in basketball?  The NCAA Tournament is one thing.  Meaningless NIT games are something else entirely.

Frankly, that's the reason the higher-seeded teams end up losing their first- or second-round home games in the NIT.  Because their opponent is much more motivated than they are.  The teams that know they're headed to the NIT play like they want to be there.  The ones that just miss the NCAA Tournament play like they don't.  I'm not sure how guaranteeing more disappointed major conference teams NIT bids will make that any better.

Last season's NIT final was between two Conference USA teams--North Texas and UAB.  While not a sexy matchup, it ended up being a pretty good game.  I don't even think ESPN, which has had exclusive broadcast rights to the NIT for years, minded the matchup.  I suspect it was the host committee in Las Vegas, which now hosts the NIT semifinals and championship game.  They want the "sexy" matchup, even if it's entirely unsexy.

It's also worth mentioning that there was also very little actual need to make this declaration.  Five of the six major conferences had at least two teams in last year's NIT.  The only one that didn't was the Big 12, which placed seven teams in the NCAA Tournament and had an eighth team, Oklahoma State, just miss out and get the top overall seed in the NIT instead.  So, that's eight of 10 conference teams in either the NCAA Tournament or NIT.  New Big 12 members Cincinnati and Central Florida also played in the NIT last season, when they were both in the American.

All four No. 1 seeds, which automatically go to the "First Four Out" of the NCAA Tournament, were from Power 6 conferences.  While they didn't all host due to some having scheduling conflicts, nine of the 16 seeded teams came from the six leagues.  So, qualification and representation for the major conferences in the NIT wasn't even actually an issue.  It seems unlikely that they'd get more than two or three teams per conference, anyway, since it's only a 32-team field and most of the 36 NCAA at-large selections will come from those same six conferences.

What that means is the NIT is "stuck" with only a handful of middle-of-the-road major conference teams to choose from.  The rest of the field is primarily going to be mid-majors anyway.  Even with those two guaranteed spots for the Power 6, they'll still need to take multiple teams from leagues like the Mountain West or Missouri Valley or American.  What I fear is that those teams are the ones who'll suffer.  Because this announcement sure made it seem like their biggest concern is no longer how good a team is.  It's what conference they're in above anything else.

Now, there's an easy compromise here.  The rest of the 20-team NIT field will be filled by at-large teams.  The number of NIT auto bids that ended up going to regular season conference champions was generally anywhere between eight and 10.  So why not give 8-10 of those 20 remaining spots to the regular season conference champions?  But, that idea actually makes sense, so of course they won't do it.

Once even bigger than the NCAA Tournament, the NIT's prominence has dropped significantly.  It received a little boost after the launch of those other (unnecessary) Division I postseason tournaments, but is still nothing like what it once was.  It still meant something, though.  Including the regular season conference champions gave it that meaning.  Those teams knew they were still going to the postseason, and, if all went well and they reached the semifinals, they had a chance to play in Madison Square Garden, where all the biggest college basketball games are played.

Then they moved the finals out of Madison Square Garden and diminished the NIT even further.  This latest move pushes the event further towards irrelevance.  Because they're essentially turning it into the Independence Bowl (or whichever other December bowl game between 6-6 teams you prefer).  It's a self-inflicted wound, too.  There was no reason to take something everybody loves about college basketball (the chance of the low-major team pulling an upset against one of the big boys) and get rid of it simply so the Power 6 conferences could have even more opportunity.

With what college sports has become, however, this sadly could've been predicted.  That's why I'm not surprised by it.  Not in the slightest.  Especially not with the next round of expansion coming next year and a pair of 18-team conferences on the way.  There's only 100 spots available between the NCAA Tournament and NIT.  Only 68 of those are at-large teams.  You knew it was just a matter of time until they started looking for a way for the same conferences to get as many of those 68 as possible.  The little guys be damned!  Congratulations on your 28-4 season.  You really should've won your conference tournament, though.  Because why would we pick you for the NIT when we can take a 15-17 Illinois team instead?

2023 Picks, Week 8

Much like network cross-flexing, I'll never understand the NFL's new system for how they do the byes in the 18-game season.  For some random reason, there's a full complement of 16 games this week.  Then we go back to teams having byes next week.  Also for some random reason, even though MLB is avoiding Thursday and Sunday nights with the World Series schedule, they scheduled a terrible Sunday night game (Bears-Chargers) and didn't flex it out.  Like I said, I don't get it.

Thursday Night: Buffalo (Win)

Rams (3-4) at Cowboys (4-2): Dallas-Man, did Kevin Burkhart luck out!  This is FOX's #1 game, so he's on the call with Greg Olsen.  He also does MLB pregame.  Fortunately for him, the World Series and his NFL assignment this week are located across the street from each other!  It feels like forever since Dallas has been home after two straight on the West Coast, followed by their bye week.  They'll enjoy the spoils of being back at AT&T Stadium.

Vikings (3-4) at Packers (2-4): Green Bay-Minnesota is on a roll.  They started 1-4, then earned back-to-back wins, including that upset over the 49ers on Monday night.  The Packers are going the other way.  They've lost three straight, although the last two were close ones at AFC West opponents.  So, I don't read too much into that.  A win here puts them back ahead of Minnesota in the standings.

Falcons (4-3) at Titans (2-4): Atlanta-The NFC South isn't the strongest division.  I get that.  But the Falcons are still in first place.  And they've gotten there by winning the close games.  Three of their four wins are by one, two and three points.  So, basically, they're this year's Vikings.  Expect another close one in Nashville against a Titans team that's better than its 2-4 record.  Other than that blowout in Cleveland, they've been in every game.  Different week, similar result for them here I think.

Saints (3-4) at Colts (3-4): New Orleans-We're just about halfway through the season and I still have no idea what to make of the New Orleans Saints.  They started out 2-0, but have lost four out of five since.  The one win during that stretch, though, was an absolute annihilation of the Patriots in New England.  The Patriots aren't really that good.  I get it.  But are the Saints that team, the one that lost to the Texans and Jaguars, or something in between?  Hopefully we'll find out as their tour of the AFC South concludes.

Patriots (2-5) at Dolphins (5-2): Miami-When these two met at Foxboro in Week 2, I don't think anyone could've expected the trajectory each of their seasons would take.  The Patriots might've salvaged any remaining hope they have with that upset of the Bills last week.  Which actually helped out Miami big time since it kept the Dolphins in first place.  It also got that 300th win monkey off Belichick's back.  This week, things revert to form and the high-scoring Dolphins pile up some points on that New England defense.

Jets (3-3) at Giants (2-5): Jets-It's the first regular season meeting in four years for the two MetLife Stadium teams.  It's a Giants home game, but I have a feeling there's gonna be a lot of green in the stadium.  The Giants are coming off a win last week against Washington, while the Jets had their bye.  Throw out a stinker against New England, and they've been very good at home this season.  Even though this is technically a "road" game, it's still in their stadium, and the Jets defense is certainly capable of shutting down the Giants offense.

Jaguars (5-2) at Steelers (4-2): Pittsburgh-This one actually has the potential to be a very entertaining game.  The Jaguars have won four straight and lead the AFC South, while Pittsburgh has posted back-to-back seven-point victories.  The Steelers' point differential this season is -24, yet they're 4-2.  So, they know how to figure it out late in close games.  Like they did two weeks ago against the Ravens, last week against the Rams and this week against the Jaguars.

Eagles (6-1) at Commanders (3-4): Philadelphia-Washington nearly beat the Eagles a few weeks ago, holding the lead late in the fourth quarter before Philly pulled it out in overtime.  The Commanders then went and got their butts kicked by the Bears, while the Eagles did end up losing to the Jets.  They rebounded with a nice win over the Dolphins on Sunday night last week.  This is the last game before a brutal six-week stretch, and eight of their last nine are against playoff teams from last season.  So, basically, they need to go into DC and take care of business.

Texans (3-3) at Panthers (0-6): Carolina-Carolina is still looking for its first win.  It may come this week.  I don't know why, but I really like this matchup for them.  The Texans are playing their third of four consecutive games against the NFC South, so if nothing else, the Panthers can use that film to see what to do against their division rivals.  Houston has been really good over the past four weeks and looks at this one as a good opportunity to go over .500.  Yet I like the Panthers to finally get in the win column.

Browns (4-2) at Seahawks (4-2): Seattle-In the movie Draft Day, these two made a deal for the No. 1 pick.  Neither one is in contention for it in the actual 2023 season.  They ARE both in the playoff hunt, however.  After the high of that win over San Francisco, Cleveland played a very entertaining shootout in Indianapolis last week.  The Browns didn't seal it until Kareem Hunt scored with 15 seconds left.  Now they must deal with one of the most unpleasant experiences in football.  Visiting Seattle and the 12th Man.

Chiefs (6-1) at Broncos (2-5): Kansas City-Some division rivals don't even meet until December.  Meanwhile, these two play twice in 17 days in October, then call it a season.  That Thursday night game gave us the very unique 19-8 score.  This one should be much different.  The result should be similar, though.  The Chiefs make it seven in a row.

Ravens (5-2) at Cardinals (1-6): Baltimore-Even if Kyler Murray were healthy, the Ravens would be heavy favorites in this game.  Without him playing, well, let's just say those chances at landing the No. 1 pick keep improving by the week.  We saw what the Ravens did to the Lions last week.  I can only imagine what they'll do to the Cardinals!

Bengals (3-3) at 49ers (5-2): San Francisco-Boy, are the 49ers sure happy to be home!  They started out 5-0, then went to Cleveland and Minnesota and lost both.  Now it's back to the Bay Area for the first time in three weeks, where the Bengals await.  Cincinnati was buoyed by that Monday night win over the Rams a few weeks ago and has won its last two to get back to .500.  They'll slip back under, as San Francisco gets back in the win column.

Bears (2-5) at Chargers (2-4): Chargers-Why do NBC and the NFL think that people want to watch this game on Sunday night?  There were seriously no better options you could flex into primetime in its place?  Justin Fields won't even be playing, so the Bears will have that guy who played last week at quarterback again.  Although, he had a good game and they did beat the Raiders.  We'll see if he can do it again.  My guess is no.  The Chargers really need a win here and they should get it.

Raiders (3-4) at Lions (5-2): Detroit-I'd make the same complaint about the Raiders being on in primetime again as I made about the Sunday night game, but why bother?  This one at least involves the Lions, who are playing a home Monday night game for the first time in forever.  And, thanks to the 49ers' loss last week, they're suddenly in the mix for home field.  Yes, there's still a long way to go.  We aren't even halfway through the season yet.  But it is exciting to be talking about the Detroit Lions like this!  They're gonna be 6-2 at the end of October!

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-6
Overall: 67-40

Texas and Arizona

We've officially come full circle.  I started this blog right around this time 13 years ago...and my first few posts pretty much all revolved around the World Series, which included the Texas Rangers that year.  Now, the Rangers are back in the Fall Classic, just as I predicted.  Their opponent I definitely did not see coming, however.  There are very few, if any, people who thought the Diamondbacks would be here, yet here they are.

What we're left with is the third-ever all-wild card World Series (after 2002 & 2014), with the winner guaranteed to be the eighth wild card World Series champion and the first since the 2019 Nationals.  This also the third-ever World Series between two expansion teams (after Royals-Mets in 2015 & Nationals-Astros in 2019).  And we'll see a long drought come to an end.  The Rangers have been in existence since 1961, moved to Dallas in 1971, and have never won.  Arizona's only previous World Series appearance, meanwhile, was its championship 22 years ago.  Most of the time since then, they've been a sub-.500 team.  So, it's been a long time coming for both of them.

You know what's crazy about the Diamondbacks making it?  The dates of this year's World Series are exactly the same as the dates in 2001.  So, every World Series game in Diamondbacks history will be exactly 22 years apart.  It's also crazy to think that this is the second year of this playoff format where the top six teams in each league make it...and the No. 6 seed in the NL has reached the World Series both times!  Pre-2022, the Phillies and Diamondbacks don't even make the playoffs.  And they both ended up in the World Series.

It's also crazy to think that both of these teams lost 100 games in 2021.  So did the Orioles.  The two World Series participants and the team that had the best record in the American League.  Proof that it doesn't take long if you do it right, and maybe some hope for White Sox and Rockies fans (sorry, A's and Royals fans, but it'll be a more than two years for your teams).

In 2001, the Diamondbacks were a juggernaut anchored by two dominant starting pitchers--Curt Schilling and Hall of Famer Randy Johnson.  This year, it's been a similar formula.  And, while they're not Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling, there's no denying that Arizona doesn't get here without Zac Gallen and Merrill Kelly.  And they're gonna need them to step up one more time.  But, hey, if they each win both of their starts, that's the four wins the Diamondbacks need.

The problem, of course, is that Gallen and Kelly will be going against Nathan Eovaldi and Jordan Montgomery, then the Rangers have Max Scherzer waiting in the wings for Game 3 (and Game 7, should it get there).  Eovaldi is one of the best postseason pitchers of this generation.  His teams are undefeated in his starts and his only loss came in arguably his best, most clutch performance (when he threw six innings of relief in that epic 18-inning Game 3 at Dodger Stadium in 2018).  Montgomery, a guy the Yankees couldn't trust in the postseason, has been proving them more and more wrong with every start.  And, even though he wasn't vintage Max Scherzer in his two ALCS starts, there are worse things than having a future Hall of Famer lined up to start Game 7.

I love the approach the Rangers took to building this team.  After the 100-loss season, they went out and acted like the big-market franchise they are, signing Marcus Semien and Corey Seager back-to-back in the winter of 2021-22.  Then, last offseason, they addressed the pitching, bringing in Jacob deGrom (among others).  The ironic thing is that, due to injuries, they had to completely rebuild the rotation at the trade deadline.  Eovaldi, Montgomery and Scherzer all joined the team midseason.  They stand to potentially start six World Series games between them.

All season long, the Rangers' bullpen has been considered a weakness.  During the postseason, it's been anything but.  There was that one hiccup in Game 5 against Houston, but that's really been it.  The Diamondbacks' bullpen, meanwhile, is considered a strength, and it's one area where Arizona is thought to have the advantage.  I'm not so sure, though.  Especially if the Rangers get length out of their starters and don't need to rely on the bullpen as much.  Arizona, meanwhile, figures to go to the bullpen fairly regularly and has to figure out something for the three games Gallen and Kelly don't start.

Offensively, it's clearly advantage Texas.  The Rangers had all kinds of issues with the bat during their three ALCS home games.  Whatever was wrong, though, they figured it out in Houston.  Adolis Garcia especially.  Maybe throwing at him wasn't the smartest idea.  Because all the Astros did was piss him off and light a fire under his ass!  He hasn't stopped hitting since!

Speaking of guys who haven't stopped hitting, NLCS MVP Ketel Marte has at least one in every game this postseason.  That's insane!  The rest of the Arizona offense did just enough, and they sure took advantage of the Phillies' bats going quiet in Games 6 & 7.  But they also swept a pair of division winners in Milwaukee and the Dodgers, winning four of those five games on the road, so count them out at your own risk.

Texas started the postseason 7-0, with six of those wins coming on the road--against Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Houston.  The Rangers' road record this postseason, in fact, is 8-0, while they're just 1-3 at home.  The ALCS became the second playoff series in MLB history where the road team won every game, joining the 2019 World Series (the Astros lost both of those series).  The Diamondbacks, meanwhile, are 6-2 on the road in the playoffs.  They sure haven't looked like an 84-win team that barely got the last spot in the NL playoff field.

MLB.com had a fascinating article today with all of the memorable moments that have happened at Globe Life Field since it opened in 2020.  It's hosted multiple no-hitters and was the site of Aaron Judge's 62nd home run.  None of those were Rangers moments.  The first games in the stadium played in front of fans weren't even Rangers games, either.  They were in the 2020 World Series.

Chalk that up as another quirky thing about Globe Life Field.  This is the stadium's second World Series, but its first actually involving the home team.  Although, there is one member of the Rangers--Corey Seager--who'll have played in every World Series game in Globe Life Field history.  Seager was the World Series MVP in 2020, when the Dodgers beat the Rays in a series played entirely in the stadium.

Well, now the Rangers have a chance to actually add a moment of their own in their own ballpark!  And they'll have to.  Because, as good as they've been on the road, the Rangers need to win at least one home game if they want to win the first World Series title in franchise history. 

Their last appearance has painful memories.  A strike away twice in Game 6 in 2011, only for David Freese to become an October hero.  This year, things should be different.  The Rangers are the better team, and ending up as a wild card team after leading the AL West virtually all year I think was actually a good thing.  It served to motivate them, and they stormed right through the three best teams in the American League en route to the pennant.

There's also the Bruce Bochy factor.  The Rangers are the third team the future Hall of Fame manager has taken to the World Series.  He was there for San Francisco's run of three championships in five years from 2010-14 (the first of which came against Texas).  In his first season with the Rangers, he gets his fourth ring and Texas gets its first championship.  Rangers in six.  They finally won't have to watch somebody else celebrate on their home field.  They'll have a celebration of their own.

Game 1 or Game 7?

I have to admit that I'm not the first one to think of this particular topic.  My friend, Jim Henneman, wrote about it a few years ago, and I completely agree with him.  Although, I'm gonna take it one further.  Jim made a pretty compelling argument that your best starter should pitch Game 2 of a playoff series instead of Game 1.  I'm thinking a case could be made to hold him off until Game 3, though.

The traditional wisdom has always been that you start your ace in your first playoff game, your second-best pitcher in the next game, etc.  You can't always line it up, of course, since they may not be available for their desired game based on when they last pitched.  But, if teams are able, the set it up so that their No. 1 pitcher starts Game 1, then as many games as possible after that.  That's one of the advantages of all the off days in the postseason (and the byes into the Division Series for the 1 & 2 seeds).

In a five-game series, you absolutely want your ace on the mound in Game 1.  That way, it flips back around to him in Game 5, which is exactly what you want.  Although, with the way the Division Series schedules are set up, the teams in one league can get away with just three starters, which would put their Game 2 starter in line for Game 5 should they go that route.

A seven-game series is a completely different animal, though.  And that's where the conventional wisdom of your No. 1 guy in Game 1 might not necessarily be the best plan.  Because, if you think about it, Games 2 & 6 are much more pivotal than Games 1 & 5.  So that might be when you want your most trusted arm on the mound.

Of course, you're not gonna win in the postseason if you only have one starting pitcher.  The 1990s Braves dynasty had three Hall of Famers, so it really didn't matter what order Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz pitched in.  (They actually had the ideal setup--Maddux to start, Glavine in the pivotal middle games, Smoltz in the winner-take-all finale.)  But most teams don't have three Hall of Fame starting pitchers.  They're lucky to have three really good ones.  More likely, they'll have two guys they really trust.

That's why I think, and hear me out on this, your best move might be using your No. 3 starter in Game 1.  If you think about it, Game 1 is arguably the least-important game in a seven-game series.  Sure, you want to win it and get a 1-0 lead.  But if you lose Game 1 with your best pitcher on the mound, the pressure's on, and you don't have him again until Game 5...if it gets that far.  If you lose Game 1 and haven't used your ace yet, though, you're in a better position.

Meanwhile, think about the situation in Games 2 & 6.  Someone has to have a series lead in even-numbered games.  So, in Game 2 there are three possible scenarios.  You'll either be up 2-0, down 0-2 or tied 1-1.  Which means whoever's pitching Game 2 is either trying to give you a 2-0 lead or prevent you from going down 2-0.  Then that same pitcher is on the mound again in Game 6, which is even more pivotal.

Game 7 obviously gets the most attention because it's winner-take-all, but Game 6 is also always an elimination game.  The Game 6 starter (who's usually also the Game 2 starter) is either pitching to keep his team's season alive or end the other team's.  Frankly, it's the highest-pressure game of the entire series.  So, I'd want my best guy going then.  For most teams, that's not an issue.  The Phillies have Wheeler and Nola.  The Diamondbacks have Gallen and Kelly.  But who's your third starter?

Brandon Pfaadt and Ranger Suarez will be starting Game 7 of the NLCS.  Not exactly a who's who.  Had they started Game 1, however, then both teams would have one of their big guys available.  Yes, I understand that it's all hands on deck with the exception of the Game 6 starter (and even sometimes he's good to go in relief).  But if you've got a starter who you can count on going deep into the game, you don't need to rely on your entire staff in the most pivotal game of the season.

Of course, that wasn't always the case.  Back when teams used only three starters throughout the playoffs, your best starter would go in Game 1 because you wanted him to pitch three times, with his third start coming in Game 7.  Who can forget that epic Game 7 in 1991 with Hall of Famers Jack Morris (in his third start of the series) and John Smoltz throwing up zero after zero?

However, those days are long gone.  The last pitcher to make three starts in a World Series was Curt Schilling in 2001.  The 2009 Yankees also went with a three-man rotation, so CC Sabathia would've had that World Series gone seven, and Madison Bumgarner had that ridiculous five-inning relief appearance in Game 7 two days after starting Game 5 in 2014.  But, for the most part, you're only seeing a starting pitcher twice in a postseason series.

Here's the thing, though, your Game 5 starter (aka, your best guy) usually ends up pitching out of the bullpen in Game 7 at some point.  Why?  Because he's the best arm you've got.  All the more reason to consider making it so that you can get more length from your top guys in Games 6 & 7.

There's a valid counterargument that there might not be a Game 6 or 7 if you don't use your top pitchers earlier in the series.  If you've only got two starters you can count on, you want them to both pitch as much as possible.  You especially don't want to hold one back for a Game 7 that you're hoping doesn't even happen.  But what if it does and you're left with your No. 3 option to pitch the most important game of the season?

That's why Texas will have a huge advantage if the World Series goes the distance.  They'll have Max Scherzer in line for Game 7.  Of course, not every team has the luxury of having a Max Scherzer as their third starter in the playoffs.  Which only helps emphasize my point.  You're most likely gonna have to win a game with either your third or fourth starter regardless.  Would you rather that be Game 1, when you've still got a chance to come back if you lose, and you know you'll have your top two guys in four of the final six games?  Or in a Game 7 where there's no margin for error?

Yes, it's a little crazy.  Yes, it's a little out there.  But so were things like an opener, an infield overshift, and a pitch clock once upon a time.  If you've got three solid starters, you don't need to worry about it.  If you don't, you have to figure something out, so why not try it?  The hope, of course, is to avoid a Game 7, which would render the idea moot.  But wouldn't you want to be prepared for one just in case?

For a team to get to this point, they have to have a good pitching staff.  A pitching staff that's good enough to feel comfortable with whoever goes out there.  I get that.  And I get that holding your best starter until Game 3 is most likely ever happening if the LCS goes seven and you don't have much of a choice in the matter.  But that's when I'd rather have my horse going anyway.  Because Game 7 is a whole lot more important than Game 1!

2023 Picks, Week 7

Last week, when I was wondering aloud whether the 49ers and Eagles would both be undefeated when they played each other, I figured probably not.  I just wasn't sure who'd lose first.  Little did I know, they'd both get their first loss within a few hours of each other on the road against an AFC team you wouldn't expect.  Or maybe we should've with the Browns' and Jets' defenses.

As a result of those losses, we've now got a whole bunch of 5-1 teams.  Five of them in fact.  Although, with the Eagles meeting the Dolphins this week, we do know that they won't all be 6-1.  (There are also five 1-5 teams and the Panthers are 0-6, so it's basically half the league that's either in a really good or really bad position.)

Thursday Night: New Orleans (Loss)

Raiders (3-3) at Bears (1-5): Chicago-Sure, they haven't been playing the best opponents.  But the Bears have certainly looked much, much better over the past few weeks.  So good, in fact, that I can actually see them winning this week.  The Raiders have won two in a row, but those were both at home.  Let's see how they play on the road.

Browns (3-2) at Colts (3-3): Cleveland-Color me surprised after the Browns completely shut down previously unbeaten San Francisco last week.  Talk about a confidence builder!  Was it a one-week thing where they simply took advantage of the matchup?  Possibly.  And teams will certainly be watching that film to make sure they know what to do against Cleveland moving forward.  Fortunately for them, even if the Colts do that, their offense still isn't good enough to do much of anything against them.

Bills (4-2) at Patriots (1-5): Buffalo-Oh, how the mighty have fallen!  If not for one play against the Jets, New England would be winless.  And, frankly, it doesn't really show signs of getting any better.  They cannot score!  Yet, despite being benched twice in the last two weeks, they're sticking with Mac Jones.  If this is Belichick's New England farewell, he surely isn't going out with a season to remember.  At least, not for the good reasons.

Commanders (3-3) at Giants (1-5): Giants-If not for some poor clock management, the Giants very well might've beaten the Bills last week.  It's amazing what a difference Saquon Barkley makes (even without Daniel Jones)!  And, now that they're done with that gauntlet of an early-season schedule, maybe they can start thinking that it's possible to turn things around.  Also, I know I keep harping on this, but it's ridiculous that their first Sunday afternoon home game of the season is in Week 7!

Falcons (3-3) at Buccaneers (3-2): Atlanta-Because the Bucs already had their bye, they're in first place by a half-game in the NFC South.  It feels like every division game in the NFC South is almost worth double, since it doesn't seem like any of those four teams has a shot at a wild card.  So, that makes this one very important for both teams.  I have a feeling Atlanta goes on the road and moves into first place.

Lions (5-1) at Ravens (4-2): Detroit-This is perhaps the most underrated game of the week.  But take a look at the standings and you'll see both the Lions and Ravens in first place.  Detroit's position atop the NFC North is much more comfortable than Baltimore's in the AFC North, and it'll stay that way after the Lions win this one.  They're proving that all of the hype surrounding them entering the season was entirely justified.

Steelers (3-2) at Rams (3-3): Rams-We found out this week that, because Stan Kroenke doesn't want to make the field wider to accommodate soccer, SoFi Stadium won't be hosting any games at the 2026 World Cup after all.  A dumb decision to be sure, but he built that place for the Rams, who'll be playing their third straight home game against the Steelers.  They lost to Philadelphia, then bounced back with a win over Arizona.  The Steelers are rested and coming off their bye, so this one could be interesting.  I do think the Rams manage to get back over .500 heading into their trip to Dallas, though.

Cardinals (1-5) at Seahawks (3-2): Seattle-San Francisco's loss suddenly makes winning the NFC West a much more attainable goal for the Seahawks.  There's still a long way to go.  I understand that.  But the schedule's about to get a whole lot harder (starting on Thanksgiving, they have a four-week stretch where they go San Francisco, Dallas, San Francisco, Philadelphia).  So, the Seahawks need to bank wins now.  And the Cardinals at home is a game they absolutely should win.

Packers (2-3) at Broncos (1-5): Green Bay-The Packers return from their bye week to visit Sean Payton's Broncos.  It's been a rough go of it for him so far during his first season in Denver, which, frankly, isn't really a surprise.  A lot of work needs to be done in order to make that team competitive again.  As for the Packers, it didn't take them long to move on from Aaron Rodgers.  A win here, and they get to 3-3.

Chargers (2-3) at Chiefs (5-1): Kansas City-That opening night loss to Detroit is now a distant memory.  Kansas City hasn't really played its best football yet, but has somehow won five in a row.  So, in other words, it's been typical Chiefs.  This week, they face the Chargers at home, and it should be business as usual.  Whether the Chiefs play well or not, they'll do what they usually do and win a division game.

Dolphins (5-1) at Eagles (5-1): Philadelphia-I've been critical of some of the Sunday Night Football selections this season, but they ended up with a good one here.  Sure, they're playing up the Jales Hurts vs. Tua angle, but they quarterback two of the best offenses in the entire NFL.  And this could end up becoming a shootout.  Somebody's getting handed their second loss.  Miami's first came in Buffalo, which is by far the best team they've faced this season.  Now they play a second good team, and the result should be the same.

49ers (5-1) at Vikings (2-4): San Francisco-While that loss was certainly unexpected, it may end up being a good thing for the 49ers.  It brought them down to Earth a little, and it took the pressure of trying to remain undefeated off them.  It'll likely end up being a minor blip, too.  When they go to Minnesota on Monday night, they'll get back on track.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-5
Overall: 59-35 

Juegos Panamericanos Santiago 2023

We're in the midst of that brief period where all six major North American sports are in action.  October means the MLB postseason, and the NFL's in the heart of its season.  The NHL just got underway and the NBA regular season begins next week.  MLS is about to wrap up, and we just saw the Las Vegas Aces knock off the New York Liberty in an exciting clinching Game 4 of the WNBA Finals.

That can only happen in October, a sure sign that it's Fall.  Another sure sign that it's Fall is that summer sports have basically wound down.  Sure, some go into the Fall or even year-round, but, for the most part, Olympic hopefuls have finished their season and are enjoying a few weeks off before they kick off an all-important Olympic season that they hope will culminate in a trip to Paris.

It sounds weird, then, to be talking about a Summer sports event only getting started now, let alone a multi-sports event.  Yet that's exactly what we have.  The 2023 Pan American Games have begun in Santiago, Chile.  Nearly 7,000 athletes from 41 countries and territories will be competing from now until Nov. 5, with Olympic berths on the line in a handful of sports.

For the most part, the Pan Am Games aren't a high priority in the United States.  In the sports with direct Olympic qualifying opportunities, the U.S. sent the full National "A" team that we'll also be seeing in Paris.  In others, such as basketball and volleyball, the U.S. turned down its bid and won't even be competing.  And in sports like track & field and swimming, the World Championships were the priority, so the U.S. team in Santiago features either athletes who didn't compete at Worlds or younger athletes who are using Pan Ams to gain international experience.

So, I can understand where the Pan Am Games sometimes get lost in the shuffle in the American consciousness.  They're a second-tier event, held with nothing close to the same reverence as the Olympics.  That would likely be the case even if the U.S. was sending all of its top-flight athletes and the Pan Am Games were taking place during the Summer.  It's especially true in the Fall with a team that isn't full of household names.

But for many of the other countries in the Americas, the Pan Am Games are a HUGE deal!  A lot of those athletes may not be good enough to qualify for the Olympics or World Championships, so the Pan Am Games aren't just a chance to represent their nation, it's the pinnacle of competition for them.  Likewise, it's the chance for their nations to shine.  While larger nations like the United States, Canada and Brazil (nations that figure to win a bunch of Olympic medals next year) will dominate the medal standings, the smaller countries in the Americas will also bring home plenty of medals.  That won't be the case next year, when those nations will celebrate any medal they win, knowing there won't be many.

There are also some sports that are part of the Pan Am Games, but not the Olympics.  So, for athletes who compete in roller sports or basque pelota or racquetball or bowling or wakeboarding/water skiing, this really is the pinnacle of international competition.  Sure, those sports have World Championships, but, unless they get Olympic recognition, this is the only time they get the chance to mingle and be teammates with athletes from other sports at an event of this magnitude.

All of that is enough for the Pan Am Games to still be worthy of our attention, which, I admit, can be difficult.  Especially since the timing of the Pan Am Games is entirely dependent on where they're being held.  But, that's what happens when North and South America are in different hemispheres and have completely opposite seasons!  Which is how we get a mid-October start for the first Pan Am Games in Chile.

I'm not sure if this is a sign of how little people care or a very forward-thinking move (maybe both), but there isn't any TV coverage of the Pan Am Games this year.  Instead, there's a dedicated Pan Am Sports streaming channel that will have live coverage of every event, with both English and Spanish commentary.  (Although, I went to watch the Opening Ceremony earlier, and it doesn't look like they have an on demand feature, which is too bad.)

While I think the streaming thing is a great idea in theory, my worry is that instead of increasing the Pan Am Games' exposure, it'll end up limiting it.  People who want to watch will seek it out, but, even though it's free, they're unlikely to draw many casual viewers.  And I have a feeling some people who want to watch won't know about the streaming channel and won't care enough to look for it, so they just won't watch at all.  So, I'm very curious to see how it actually works out.  Especially since, to my knowledge, this is the first time a major international multi-sport event is going strictly streaming.

Don't be surprised if it ends up like MLS, though.  This was the first year of the MLS deal with Apple.  It was great for the league financially, but exactly what I thought might happen did.  It didn't move the needle anywhere near the way Apple and MLS thought, and it actually might've reduced the public's awareness of MLS (which should've been capitalizing on Messi Mania) because so many people didn't have access to the games.

Although, the website is free and it isn't geoblocked.  Which means anyone, anywhere in the world can watch the Pan Am Games.  I'm not saying vast amounts of people in Europe or Asia will have any interest in watching the Americas' regional Olympics, but I'm sure there'll probably be some.  And any exposure outside of just the Americas is certainly a good thing.  In fact, I'll be curious to see what countries have the most hits and where those countries are located.

With an event like the Pan Am Games, it's worth trying something new.  And it's worth the risk.  If the streaming-only thing doesn't work, they've got four years to think about whether they want to do it again.  (And who knows what the sports media landscape will look like in 2027 anyway?)  Or maybe they decide to go the more typical route of having both linear TV and streaming broadcasts.  They could even do different things depending on what each country wants.

So, even though I bet this is the first a lot of you are even finding out that this year's Pan Am Games have started, I'm excited for them.  Maybe it's because my experience eight years ago in Toronto gave me a different appreciation for them and the passion they bring out in our friends from elsewhere in the Americas, but I'm psyched for the Pan Am Games to get underway!  Even if it's out of season to be watching ummer sports in late October/early November, I still will be.

Don't Blame the Format

For the second time in as many years since MLB expanded the playoffs to six teams per league and gave the top two division winners a bye into the Division Series, the Braves and Dodgers were the No. 1 and 2 seeds in the National League.  For the second straight year, they both won 100 games.  For the second straight year, they were eliminated in the Division Series by a team from their own division.  And, for the second straight year, the NLCS features two wild card teams.

It hasn't been much different in the American League.  Last year, the top two seeds--the Astros and Yankees--did advance to the ALCS, but the Yankees only did so by the skin of their teeth.  This year, Houston is back, but top-seeded Baltimore was swept by Texas in the Division Series.  So, in the two years of the current playoff format, five of the eight teams that had a bye into the Division Series did not make the LCS.

Granted, two years is a very small sample size.  But those stats are alarming nonetheless!  When the new format was devised, that bye into the Division Series was seen as an advantage.  The top two teams wouldn't face the pressure of a best-of-three Wild Card Series, and they'd be able to rest up while lining up their pitching for the Division Series.  It was their reward for being one of the two best teams over 162 games.

What we've seen over the past two Octobers, though, is that the bye hasn't exactly proven to be an advantage.  In fact, it's been anything but.  And it's prompted some fans and experts alike to wonder if they should change the format again.  Because the division winners have definitely looked like they've been sitting around for a week.  

During the season, they play pretty much every day for six months.  So, waiting around for five days before the start of the Division Series is their longest break of the entire season.  It takes them out of their rhythm.  Especially against an opponent that not only was just playing, but is also at least on a little bit of a roll after having just won a best-of-three series.  If anything, that Wild Card Series winner is the one with the momentum.  Not the top-two seed.

The Braves blamed the layoff for their early exit last season, so they tried something this year.  In an attempt to add some intensity to their workouts, they played simulated intersquad games and admitted fans into the ballpark for them.  It didn't work.  They lost to the Phillies again.

Is it possible that the matchups were actually the reason?  Of course!  The Braves didn't want to play the Phillies because they knew it would be a much tougher series.  And, yes, a division rival will be much more familiar with you, so it could be considered bad luck that the Braves drew the Phillies two years in a row and the Dodgers also had a division opponent both times (San Diego and Arizona).  But, that argument goes both ways.  You should be as familiar with a division foe as they are with you.  Besides, if you're the better team (which the division winner should be), your opponent really shouldn't matter.

Meanwhile, the Astros have provided the counter argument.  So far, Houston's the only team that's been able to figure it out.  Last season, the Astros got the bye into the Division Series and went on to win the World Series.  This year, they won the AL West on a tiebreaker, which again gave them the first-round bye, and they were the only division winner to actually make it to the LCS.  So, it can be done.  Maybe there's nothing wrong with the format then.

One of the proposed solutions is changing the Wild Card Series from a best-of-three to a single game.  That way, the top two division winners would still get a bye into the Division Series, but wouldn't have to sit around for a week waiting for their opponent.  Seeing as so many didn't like the single-elimination Wild Card Game because they considered it unfair and that MLB sold the rights for 8-12 (not 4) Wild Card Series Games to ESPN, that seems incredibly unlikely.

Another idea that's been floated around but seems just as unlikely is further expanding the postseason to eight teams per league.  They did that in 2020 as a one-off because of the extraordinary COVID season that limited teams to just 60 games.  In a full, 162-game season, that seems unnecessary.  Not to mention the fact that the 13th-16th best teams in the Majors will have, at best, 84-85 wins max.  That rewards mediocrity (yes, the Stanley Cup Playoffs have 16 teams and the NBA has 20 if you include the Play-In Tournament, but they play half as many games as MLB).

There's an argument that Ron Darling made during the Dodgers-Diamondbacks series that I completely agree with.  He's not the only one who's made it, either.  What he said, basically, is that being the best team over 162 games is irrelevant in the current format.  It's a tournament now, and you need to have the best team for that tournament.  Sure, you need to be good enough to get in, but once you're there, how you're playing now matters much more.

That's the mentality teams need to have going into the playoffs.  Because if you were to ask any player or manager, I'm sure they'd all say that they'd rather win their division, get a bye and have a few days off rather than face a best-of-three Wild Card Series.  But the tradeoff is still finding a way to be ready to go after that break.  Otherwise, they'll suffer the same fate as the 2022-23 Braves and Dodgers and 2023 Orioles.  Being the best team from April-September only matters so much if you're not the best team in October.

So, I agree with the Commissioner.  The sample size is simply too small to make any sort of judgment about the current playoff system and whether it "works" or not.  In fact, I think the argument could be made that the first two years of the format have been proof that it does work.  The No. 6 seed in the National League, a team that wouldn't have even made the playoffs pre-2022, has reached the NLCS both times, and the sixth-seeded Phillies won the pennant last year.

Winning 100 games in the regular season is a tremendous accomplishment.  Come October, though, it guarantees you nothing.  The last two postseasons have proven that.  And the format doesn't look like it's changing anytime soon.  So, if those 100-win teams also want to win the World Series, they're gonna need to figure out how to navigate a five-day break before the Division Series.  Otherwise, the MLB Postseason will become as much of a crapshoot as the Stanley Cup Playoffs, where it's just accepted that the higher-seeded teams almost never win.

2023 Picks, Week 6

I don't know if this falls under "people are funny" or "people are stupid," but, after the Giants' injury report for this week came out, there were a lot of calls for them to be flexed out of the Sunday night game.  On Friday!  As if it was possible to make that change on two days' notice.  I don't completely disagree with the sentiment, and I wondered if they might flex it out, but it's obviously not happening two days before the game!  So, sorry America, you're being subjected to the Giants losing in primetime for the fourth time in six weeks.  The good news is they only have one scheduled primetime game after this.

One game did get flexed this week.  Bucs-Lions was moved from a 1:00 start to a 4:25 start.  Here's the interesting thing, though, they made it a late game, but it's still not the national game.  That's Jets-Eagles.  And FOX already had a second late game in Rams-Cardinals.  So, why did they switch it to a late kickoff if they were keeping Jets-Eagles as the national game?

Thursday Night: Kansas City (Win)

Ravens (3-2) vs Titans (2-3): Baltimore-The 2023 London schedule concludes with the Ravens and Titans.  This won't be like last week where the Jaguars stayed there.  Both teams traveled, so neither will have the advantage there.  Baltimore's closer to London than Nashville, but not by much, so that shouldn't be a factor.  What should be a factor is the fact that the Ravens scored only 10 points against Pittsburgh last week.  Their offense is better than that.  This week, they actually show up.

Commanders (2-3) at Falcons (3-2): Atlanta-Washington goes from nearly beating Philadelphia to getting blown out by Chicago.  They've been sitting around for 10 days since that loss.  The Falcons, meanwhile, came back from London and barely held on to beat Houston.  But they won.  That's the important takeaway.  They should win again, extending the Commanders' losing streak to three.

Vikings (1-4) at Bears (1-4): Minnesota-Chicago didn't just pick up its first win last week, it put up 40 points!  To say that came out of nowhere would be an understatement.  The Vikings, meanwhile, gave the Chiefs a game and actually had a chance to win.  They didn't, but that's beside the point.  They've still got a chance to straighten their season around.  If they lose in Chicago, though, they could be setting themselves up for a long year.

Seahawks (3-1) at Bengals (2-3): Seattle-Am I the only one who's confused by the Bengals?  You never know which team's gonna show up.  Will it be the one that was held to a field goal in Tennessee or the one that put up 34 points a week later in Arizona?  Do they even know?  Is it all dependent on how good Burrow feels?  Anyway, I like a rested Seahawks team coming off its bye against them.

49ers (5-0) at Browns (2-2): San Francisco-Coming into the season, most of the talk about the 49ers surrounded their defense.  Now, it's their offense getting all the attention.  Trey Lance is still undefeated in the regular season as an NFL starter, and they've scored at least 30 points in every game this season.  While I don't think either one will be undefeated when they play the Eagles in early December, I'm not sure when that first loss is coming.

Panthers (0-5) at Dolphins (4-1): Miami-That Dolphins offense is pretty good, huh?!  They've only played two home games...and averaged 50.5 points in them!  Sure, that ridiculous 70-20 score against Denver skews that number, but they put up 31 against the Giants last week.  Their third home game is against another opponent they should have no issues scoring against.  The Panthers are the only remaining winless team in the NFL.  They'll stay that way.

Colts (3-2) at Jaguars (3-2): Jacksonville-Jacksonville is 2-0 in London this season, but only 1-2 in the United States.  Playing that second straight London game was a huge advantage against the Bills.  They were fresher, while Buffalo was jetlagged.  And it showed.  Now I wonder if the Jaguars will be the jetlagged ones, since they're back at home without a bye.  They'd better not be.  Because this is an important one for the division lead against a surprising Colts team.

Saints (3-2) at Texans (2-3): Houston-While much of Houston's attention this week will probably be on the Astros' annual ALCS appearance, the Texans will get a busy Sunday started by hosting the Saints.  I correctly predicted that the Saints would go into Foxboro and beat the Patriots last week.  What I didn't see coming was them shutting out New England.  Houston, meanwhile, went to Atlanta and only lost by two.  For some reason, I think the Texans win this one and even their record at 3-3.

Patriots (1-4) at Raiders (2-3): Las Vegas-Josh McDaniels returning as Offensive Coordinator was supposed to be a good thing.  It hasn't been.  New England can't score and Mac Jones has been benched in each of the last two weeks.  Bill Belichick insists he'll stick with his QB, but you've gotta wonder for how long.  The Patriots' aura has definitely worn off.  It's not like the Raiders are good either, but they're less bad than New England.  At least they can score (with former Patriots backup Jimmy Garoppolo under center).

Cardinals (1-4) at Rams (2-3): Rams-Even though their record might not indicate it, this Rams team is much closer to the juggernaut that won the Super Bowl at home two years ago than that dumpster fire they were last season.  Also consider, two of their losses have been to the 49ers and Eagles.  Playing the Cardinals at home, they're in the rare position of being favored.

Eagles (5-0) at Jets (2-3): Philadelphia-These two always used to play in the final game of the preseason, but that annual matchup went away when they got rid of the fourth preseason game.  Now we'll only see it every four years when the NFC East and AFC East match up.  This was, of course, supposed to be Jalen Hurts vs. Aaron Rodgers.  That had the makings of a pretty good game.  Instead, it's Zach Wilson and Jalen Hurts.  That's not quite the same.

Lions (4-1) at Buccaneers (3-1): Detroit-Had they flexed this one into Sunday night instead of a non-national late game, it would've made more sense.  It's actually a pretty important one, too.  They're both first-place, one-loss teams, and the winner will have the tiebreaker should it come to that at playoff time.  It doesn't look like the Eagles or 49ers will lose much, either, so, more importantly, the winner will keep pace with those two.  That will be a Lions team that's already proven it can play with the big boys.

Giants (1-4) at Bills (3-2): Buffalo-Most people think this one will be ugly, but can it really be any uglier than Cowboys-49ers last week?  They also thought the last Sunday night game involving a New York team, the Taylor Swift Bowl two weeks ago would be ugly, and it turned out to be anything but.  Do I actually think the Giants will make this competitive?  No.  My hope is that they at least manage to score a touchdown.

Cowboys (3-2) at Chargers (2-2): Dallas-Dallas plays its third West Coast game in the first six weeks at SoFi Stadium against the Chargers.  The first two didn't go well.  They simply played poorly in a loss to the Cardinals, but they got their butts kicked by the 49ers.  There's no way around that.  Yet, for some reason, I'm picking them to beat the Chargers on Monday night heading into their bye week.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 50-29

LA's New Sports

As it turns out, breaking will end up being more like karate than skateboarding, surfing and sport climbing.  Karate made its Olympic debut in Tokyo, but wasn't included on the sport program for Paris, where breaking will make its debut.  That will also be a one Olympics only appearance, as breaking wasn't among the sports proposed to be added for LA28, all of which have been approved by the IOC.

Six sports did make the cut, two of which will be held at the Olympics for the first time, two of which will return after long absences, and the combined effort that has an on-again/off-again relationship with the Olympics.  Flag football and squash are the newbies, while lacrosse and cricket are making their Olympic comebacks.  And, with the Games being held in LA, it was obvious that baseball and softball would once again be included after not being featured in Paris.

Let's start with squash, which I'm so glad to see will finally make its long-awaited Olympic debut.  Frankly, it's ridiculous that it's been this long!  Squash has been a finalist for Olympic inclusion so many times, yet never made the cut until now.  The sport checks all the boxes, too.  It's long been a part of the Commonwealth Games and Asian Games, it's TV friendly and can be played anywhere, and the top of the world rankings are littered with players from all different countries.  And 32-player tournaments for both men and women add a grand total of 64 athletes.

Flag football is a sport that has been gaining traction in the Olympic movement over the past few years, especially after the NFL got involved.  It's not clear what the format will be, but there was a five-on-five version played at the 2022 World Games.  Football's obviously a very American sport, so I wouldn't be surprised if this is a one-and-done appearance.

Another very American sport, one that's becoming more and more popular at both the high school and college levels, is lacrosse.  Lacrosse has been played in the Olympics twice previously, but LA28 will be its first appearance in 120 years.  This one seemed like a given, especially since the U.S. and Canada are the top two teams in the world, but Australia is also strong, which could signal a second straight Olympic appearance in Brisbane.

Lacrosse also creates another intriguing possibility that I'd imagine the IOC will spend the next five years trying to explore.  The Iroquois invented lacrosse and have both a men's and women's national team that compete at the World Championships.  The Haudenosaunee (as the Iroquois Nationals team is known) won bronze at the World Championships this summer in San Diego.  Lacrosse is the only sport in which the Iroquois Confederacy competes internationally, and they currently don't have a National Olympic Committee, so it's not any sort of guarantee.  I'm also not entirely sure the effort to set up an NOC would be worth it for a guarantee of just one Olympics.  If they can make it work, though, it would be tremendous to see!

Cricket hasn't been played at the Olympics since 1900 and, I'll admit, I was pretty surprised by its inclusion for the LA Games.  The IOC really seemed to be pushing for cricket, though, so I'm sure that had a lot to do with it.  There's also the new professional league, Major League Cricket, and the U.S. is co-hosting the men's World Cup next year.  So, I'm sure they see cricket's potential in the U.S., as well as its popularity in other parts of the world, which were probably two of the biggest selling points.

The other thing that worked in cricket's favor was its successful inclusion at the Commonwealth Games last year.  They only had a women's tournament, but it was very popular and proved that the T20 version of the sport, which takes around three hours, can fit in well at a multi-sport Games.  And, again, cricket is so popular around the world, that it makes sense to take the opportunity to engage new fans.

It actually wouldn't surprise me if part of the reason cricket was included was to build momentum for 2032.  There are cricket grounds all over Australia, and the Australian men's and women's National Teams are both very strong.  So, a successful Olympic return in LA could pave the way for a second straight appearance in Brisbane, where the home team will be among the favorites for gold.

Speaking of the home team being among the favorites for gold, that'll certainly be the case for the U.S. in baseball and softball.  Baseball and softball's complicated Olympic history saw them return to the program in Tokyo after a 13-year absence.  With those Games being held in Japan, their inclusion was a no-brainer.  Just like their inclusion in LA (and likely inclusion in Brisbane, as well) was a no-brainer.  So, if you're keeping track, that'll be three of the four Olympics since host nations were allowed to propose additional sports that baseball and softball will be included, with Paris the only outlier (but, hey, something had to go so that we could have breaking!).

In Tokyo, the U.S. won silver in both behind host Japan.  The U.S. softball National Team will obviously be at full strength, while the U.S. baseball team would likely be set up the same way as Tokyo with Minor Leaguers and free agents.  The fact that the Olympics are in the middle of the Major League season and MLB players are unavailable has always been a sticking point with the IOC, but, unfortunately, there's really no way around that.  This time, they'll at least be able to use a Major League ballpark since, I'm assuming, Dodger Stadium would be the venue.  (Hopefully, they play softball at UCLA, in the softball-specific facility the sport deserves, rather than playing both at Dodger or Angel Stadium.)

What's interesting about the sports that have been added is that, with the exception of squash, they're all team sports.  The IOC has a target of 10,500 athletes maximum, although that's not a hard cap.  Team sports obviously require many more athletes, though, and there's only one set of medals available per gender.  So, I'll be curious to see how big the tournament fields and team sizes are, especially since none of the six sports is a permanent Olympic addition.

There was something else I noticed, too.  The additional sports for Tokyo were all ones Japan is good at, which helped boost Japan's medal total.  It was all within the rules, so I don't begrudge them for that and think it was very smart for them to take advantage of that opportunity.  That's not completely the case here, though.  Sure, you can expect the U.S. to be favored in baseball/softball, lacrosse and flag football, but not necessarily in squash and cricket.  Those seem to be more about helping those sports grow, not just capitalizing on ones where you already have success.  (Although, the U.S. is already pretty good at the existing Olympic sports, so how much can the medal count be helped as it is?)

Skateboarding, surfing and sport climbing had already been affirmed by the IOC as part of the Olympic program at LA28.  They still aren't officially among the "core" Olympic sports, but it sure seems like they're on their way to getting that status.  It'll be the third straight Olympics for each, and their future is probably a lot more secure than the three formerly "core" sports that haven't been proposed for inclusion, but, rather were given a "pathway for potential inclusion."

Boxing has had a problem with governance for quite a while and currently doesn't have a recognized international federation.  The IOC itself ran the boxing tournament in Tokyo and will again in Paris.  Modern pentathlon, which hasn't been "modern" in quite some time, replaced horse riding with an obstacle race, which the IOC insisted on.  Frankly, I think the only reason it hasn't been dropped yet is because the sport was invented by Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympic Movement, and is championed by Juan Antonio Samaranch, Jr., son of the longtime IOC President.  And weightlifting needs to figure out its doping problems.  If the IOC is satisfied with everything after Paris, weightlifting will be included.

So, even though we know the six "new" sports that will be held in LA, we still won't know the final program until after the Paris Games.  Among the additional sports, however, I think it's a safe bet that it won't be the final appearance for baseball/softball, cricket and, possibly, lacrosse.  Squash may or may not be included in future Games.  Flag football, meanwhile, appears to be the karate and breaking of the group.  But, hey, it'll still have an Olympic debut, and that deserves to be celebrated!

Hello There, We're On the Air, It's Hockey Night Tonight

Hockey season really kind of sneaks up on you.  It's been less than four months since the Golden Knights' six-year plan came to fruition and they skated the Stanley Cup around the T-Mobile Arena ice.  Now it's already time for a new season, which Vegas will begin by raising its banner to the rafters.  Will they end it by becoming repeat champions?  Or will we see the first Canadian Stanley Cup winner in more than 30 years?  And will the Prince of Wales Trophy leave the state of Florida?

Of course, Vegas isn't the only team entering the season with legitimate Stanley Cup aspirations.  It's even hard to say who would be a "favorite" as the season starts.  Because there are so many strong teams across the NHL, especially in the Eastern Conference.  There are probably 11 or 12 Eastern Conference teams that realistically could make the playoffs, so it's gonna be a dogfight for those eight spots.

Atlantic Division: The Atlantic Division will still be dominated by the Big Three--Boston, Toronto and Tampa Bay.  The Bruins are out for some redemption after a record-setting regular season that was followed by a first-round playoff loss last year.  They lost a lot through free agency and retirement, though, so I don't think they'll be nearly as dominant in 2023-24.  Toronto very well could be, though.  Now that the Leafs have gotten that first round playoff monkey off their backs, look for them to do big things this season.  And the Lightning will do what they always do.  They've been one of the most consistent teams in the league for a few seasons now.

Oh, yeah, the defending conference champions also play in the Atlantic Division.  Florida won the President's Trophy in 2021-22, then barely made the playoffs last season before getting all the way to the Stanley Cup Final.  So, I have no idea how their 2023-24 will play out.  The Sabres have gotten better and have an outside playoff shot, but the East is simply too deep.

Detroit, too, will make some noise but ultimately end up on the outside looking in.  The team I'm curious about, though, is Ottawa.  The Senators have gotten their ownership situation figured out.  Without that hanging over them, can they make a run?  The one Atlantic Division team I'm fairly certain won't go on a run is Montreal.  The Canadiens might be the worst team in the league.

Metropolitan Division: There are six Metropolitan Division teams that I can see making the playoffs.  At least one of them definitely won't.  And of those six, I think three are real contenders.  The Met hasn't had a team make the Final since Washington won the Cup in 2018, but I can definitely see that changing this year.

Carolina isn't going anywhere.  Neither are the Rangers.  They're probably the two best teams in the division.  The Devils won't catch anybody by surprise this season, but have enough talent to be just as good.  The Islanders are the team I'm really curious about, though, mainly because they have different personnel.  If anybody's gonna crack that top three, it'll be them.  Or, they could just as easily fall out of the playoffs entirely.

Then there's Pittsburgh and Washington.  The Penguins don't blow a game against the Blackhawks at the end of the season last year, the Panthers don't even make the playoffs.  And the Capitals missed the playoffs mainly because they had so many injuries to deal with.  Either one is capable of a rebound.  So, really, the Flyers and Blue Jackets are the only teams in the Met whose playoff chances can be described as "slim to none."

Central Division: Out West, there are a bunch of good teams that sort of blend into each other.  None of them really stands out as significantly better than the rest, but it also wouldn't be a surprise to see somebody assert themselves.  Especially in the Central Division, where I can even see Connor Bedard leading Chicago to the playoffs.

Will he lead the Blackhawks back to the Kane-Toews glory days of a decade ago when they won three Cups in six years?  No.  Will he make them much more entertaining and relevant?  Yes.  Will they be a playoff team?  Questionable.  I can see them getting close, but ultimately, I think the answer is "No."  Not in a division that includes Colorado, Winnipeg and Dallas.

Let's not forget, the Avalanche are only one year removed from winning the Cup.  If they're healthy, they can easily be in the discussion again.  Winnipeg has one of the best goalies in the game in Conor Hellebuyck.  And Dallas is another sneaky good team with loads of talent.  The Stars will either win the division or barely make the playoffs.  Minnesota's ready to pounce, too, and if the Wild get in, they can be a tough out.  It'll be close, but no cigar for Nashville and St. Louis.  And the Coyotes are still playing in Arizona, so they've at least got that going for them.

Pacific Division: This is, far and away, the most confusing division in hockey.  There are some really bad teams (Anaheim, Vancouver, San Jose), teams that will either be really good or really bad (Calgary, LA, Seattle), and two elite clubs that have Stanley Cup aspirations (Edmonton, Vegas).  The Pacific Division also almost never plays out as expected, so why should this season be any different?

Edmonton is a sleeping giant.  The Oilers keep getting closer, and they're gonna put it together eventually.  Once they do figure it out, they could be the team that ends that Canadian Cup drought.  The Knights won't vacate their throne that easily, though.  And the Kraken, after a respectable expansion year, won a playoff round last season.  They appear to be the most vulnerable of the three, though, especially if the Kings assert themselves.

After finishing second in the division two years ago, the Flames really regressed last season.  That had a lot more to do with the free agents they lost than an absence of talent.  They're the only one of those bottom four teams who has a chance to squeak into the playoffs.  The Sharks and Canucks certainly don't, and the Ducks are more likely to be in a three-way battle with Montreal and Arizona for the worst record in the league.

While preseason predictions are an inexact science at best, they're probably harder to get right in hockey than any other sport.  Just look at how hard it is at the beginning of the playoffs!  But I'll give it a shot anyway.  And I really think we'll see that Canadian Stanley Cup drought end.  Because I don't just think there'll be a Canadian team in the Final.  I think there'll be two.

My Stanley Cup Final prediction is Edmonton over Toronto.  Is it a crazy pick?  Probably.  But I think the Oilers and Maple Leafs are both teams on the brink.  And I see them finally breaking through.  Connor McDavid joins Wayne Gretzky and Mark Messier, two absolute legends of the game, as captains to lead Edmonton to the Stanley Cup.  Its first since 1990 and sixth overall.

2023 Picks, Week 5

This Taylor Swift stuff really has taken on a life of its own.  Although, I agree with Stephen A. Smith.  You knew what you were getting into, Travis.  And, yes, the NFL was obviously gonna milk it for all it's worth.  Are they overdoing it?  It's hard to say.  Because they're getting a whole lot more people watching NFL games who otherwise wouldn't. 

I also feel the need to comment about the ridiculous "stat" somebody posted the other day about how Taylor Swift will perform in more NFL stadiums than any NFL team this year.  Well...duh!  She went to how many cities?  NFL teams only play 17 games, with eight or nine of them at home.  So, of course, a touring megastar will play more NFL stadiums than an NFL team!  They can max out at 14.  She can max out at 30.

Anyway, back to the actual football.  The Bears blew a massive lead against Denver, then beat Washington by 20 on Thursday night, leaving the team they traded the No. 1 pick to as the only winless team left.  And we could easily see one of the two remaining unbeaten teams left go down in that heavyweight Sunday night matchup between Dallas and San Francisco.

Thursday Night: Washington (Loss)

Jaguars (2-2) vs Bills (3-1): Buffalo-Jacksonville becomes the first team ever to play back-to-back games in London.  This time, the Jaguars are the "road" team against the Bills.  I'm curious to see if being over there for two full weeks will be any sort of advantage for Jacksonville.  How could it not be?  They got the win over Atlanta last week, but this one will be a much bigger challenge.  That Bills offense is clicking right now.  Since blowing the lead in Week 1 against the Jets, they've put up 37, 38 and 48.  While they probably won't get that high against the Jaguars defense, they'll get enough.

Texans (2-2) at Falcons (2-2): Atlanta-Is Houston actually good?!  The Texans winning in Jacksonville was a surprise.  Then they did the exact same thing to the Steelers!  The Falcons, meanwhile, didn't get a bye after playing in London, which might be a good thing after the whooping they took.  Houston had a good couple of weeks offensively, but I'm still not entirely sold.  That's one of the reasons I'm going with Atlanta here.

Panthers (0-4) at Lions (3-1): Detroit-Detroit is 2-0 on Thursdays this season, which bodes well for Thanksgiving!  That's still nearly two months away, though.  The Lions' next order of business is No. 1 pick Bryce Young and the Carolina Panthers, who are still looking for their first win.  It won't be coming this week.  Over the past couple of games, the Lions have shown exactly why so many experts are high on them.  They go to 4-1 and stay right with the big boys in Philadelphia, Dallas and San Francisco.

Titans (2-2) at Colts (2-2): Tennessee-Everybody in the AFC South is 2-2, and it really feels like it'll be that way in the division all season.  None of the four teams has particularly stood out, either.  Which makes the division games that much more important.  The Titans got rolled in Cleveland, then did the rolling in Cincinnati.  Indianapolis, meanwhile, has played back-to-back overtime games.  The Colts have shown signs that they might be the team to beat in this division, but I see the Titans making enough big plays to beat them on the road.

Giants (1-3) at Dolphins (3-1): Miami-Good news...the Giants aren't a primetime game this week, so America as a whole won't be subjected to them!  In fact, this is their first 1:00 game all season (in Week 5...for an East Coast team).  Now for the bad news...last week was the one they needed.  This brutal stretch of four road games in five weeks (and five of their first six against playoff teams) isn't getting any easier with a trip to Miami.  Just for comparison, the Dolphins have played one home game and scored 70 points.  The Giants have played two and been outscored 64-3.

Saints (2-2) at Patriots (1-3): New Orleans-Either Bill Belichick's luster is wearing off or the law of averages is finally catching up to the Patriots.  He entered the season just two victories away from 300 career regular season wins.  It's Week 5, and he's still at 299.  Belichick will reach the milestone eventually, obviously, but I don't think this is how he foresaw this season going.  The Saints also got their butts kicked last week and have actually lost two straight after starting 2-0.  Whoever wins here has the chance to get their season back on track.

Ravens (3-1) at Steelers (2-2): Baltimore-Baltimore and Pittsburgh have had some great battles over the years, with the game more often than not being decided by a field goal.  So, you can bank on this year's first installment coming down to a field goal, as well.  Who kicks that late field goal, though?  Well, the Ravens have Justin Tucker, so advantage Baltimore there.  Really, though, it's how they bounced back last week after that loss to Indianapolis where they really impressed me.

Eagles (4-0) at Rams (2-2): Philadelphia-There's obviously no Super Bowl hangover in Philadelphia.  If anything, the Eagles are more motivated to get back there.  They needed overtime to stay undefeated last week, but Jake Elliott kicked the field goal to get them past Washington and move them to 4-0.  Their trip to SoFi against a Rams team that resembles the one that won the Super Bowl two years ago more than that trainwreck from last season will be a challenge.  But I think the Eagles rise to that challenge, win a close one, and get to 5-0.

Bengals (1-3) at Cardinals (1-3): Arizona-Simply put, Cincinnati is not the same team without a healthy Joe Burrow.  I don't want to say the Bengals are overrated, but they certainly aren't as good as some people give them credit for.  And, frankly, Arizona isn't as bad as some people think.  Sure, they're 1-3, but the 1 was a dominant effort against Dallas, and they really should've beaten the Giants, too.  Cincinnati, meanwhile, has been held to a field goal in half of its games.  Without Burrow, I don't know how the Bengals score.

Jets (1-3) at Broncos (1-3): Jets-Give the Jets some credit.  There was a real chance that Sunday night game against the Chiefs would get out of control early and not only did it not get out of control, it was a game!  The Jets ultimately lost, of course, but they showed that their defense, which we already knew was elite, will keep them in a lot of games.  Now, it'll be up to Zach Wilson to seal the deal in some of those.  A trip to Denver will give him a chance to do just that.

Chiefs (3-1) at Vikings (1-3): Kansas City-Minnesota is the next stop for Taylor, Travis & Mrs. Kelce, who sure seems to be relishing her 15 minutes (or is this still her 15 minutes from the Super Bowl?).  Anyway, Taylor Swift jokes aside, the Chiefs are a much better team when Kelce's in the lineup, as evidence by their Week 1 loss without him and their three wins since with him.  Plus, their quarterback is pretty good.  The Vikings will have some ground to make up in the NFC North after dropping to 1-4.

Cowboys (3-1) at 49ers (4-0): San Francisco-What could they do for an encore after last week's Sunday night game was a ratings bonanza?  How about featuring another installment of one of the best rivalries in the NFL?  Cowboys-49ers games are always so much better when they're both good, aren't they?  They've met in the playoffs in each of the last two years, and San Francisco won both times.  Don't be surprised if they meet again this January.  This game could determine who the home team is in that one, should it happen.

Packers (2-2) at Raiders (1-3): Green Bay-Green Bay without Aaron Rodgers is still a work in progress.  At times, Jordan Love looks great.  At times, he doesn't.  Hence the 2-2 record.  This week, they visit their old friend Davante Adams, whose Raiders have been just as inconsistent.  Las Vegas won at Denver in the opener, but scored just 17 points, and has lost three straight since then.  Something's obviously gotta give.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 41-24

6 Countries, 3 Continents, 1 Dumb Idea

The World Cup will celebrate its centennial in 2030.  That's obviously a huge moment for FIFA.  It also created an interesting discussion over who would host.  The first World Cup was played in Uruguay, and the hosts beat Argentina in the final that year, so it made sense that they would put forth a combined bid that would certainly be a favorite from the outset.  But 2030 is also the first time Europe is allowed to host again under FIFA's continental rotation policy, so you knew there would also be UEFA bid.

Instead of deciding between the South American bid (which eventually added Paraguay) and a bid from UEFA (the Spanish/Portuguese bid that also included Morocco in Africa), FIFA did the most FIFA thing possible.  They picked both!  Yep, only FIFA could come up with the completely nonsensical solution of having a World Cup in six countries on three different continents.  And, not surprisingly, it's only FIFA that thinks this is a good idea.

I get the idea of wanting the opening match to be in Montevideo.  It's the obvious tie-in to the inaugural tournament, which was held entirely within the city.  And, since Uruguay is way too small to host a 48-team World Cup on its own, their co-hosting with Argentina also seemed like a no-brainer.  Paraguay was added to the bid late, presumably because they're building a new National Stadium, but also because that's the location of CONMEBOL headquarters.

Logically, it all made sense.  Argentina being the defending World Cup champions doesn't hurt.  Nor does the fact that Lionel Messi is the biggest name in the sport right now.  Likewise, Diego Suarez is Uruguayan, so that bid had plenty of star power.  Plus, the last South American World Cup was in Brazil in 2014.  CONMEBOL had been gearing up for this bid basically since then, and all signs pointed to South America hosting.

Spain and Portugal, meanwhile, announced their intentions to submit a joint bid in October 2020.  Ukraine was later included as a potential host for some group play matches, while Morocco, which was the only other bidder for 2026 and was going to bid on its own anyway, teamed up with Spain and Portugal instead in March.  Ukraine was eventually dropped, leaving the three Iberian countries.  Even though Morocco's on a different continent, it was still a compact bid since you can literally see both Spain and Portugal from the northern tip of Morocco!

Morocco, of course, had the best World Cup performance ever by an African country last year, so including them was a prudent move.  Especially since they're planning on building a 93,000-seat stadium in Casablanca.  The Moroccans would like to see the final played in Casablanca, although it seems more likely the final will be in Spain, either in Madrid or at Camp Nou in Barcelona, which is being expanded to nearly 100,000 seats.

FIFA obviously preferred the Spain/Portugal/Morocco bid.  However, they didn't want to leave Uruguay, Argentina & Paraguay out in the cold, especially because of the anniversary.  So, they came up with a compromise.  The three South American countries will host one game each (they're building a 60,000-seat stadium in Asuncion for one game?!), while the majority of the tournament will be in the Iberian trio.  The host cities and how many games are in each country are still to be determined.

It'll be a while until they announce the schedule (they haven't even finalized the 2026 World Cup schedule yet!), but we do know that the first three games will be played in Montevideo, Buenos Aires and Asuncion.  Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay and their opponents then need to travel across the Atlantic for the remainder of the tournament.  Talk about being put at an extreme disadvantage!

All six nations will be given automatic berths, leaving only 42 spots available for qualifiers.  More significantly, though, FIFA is counting this as all three continents' turn in the hosting rotation.  This is important because, after hosting a World Cup, a continent is ineligible for the next two.  So, with North America hosting in 2026, that leaves just Asia and Oceania eligible for 2034.  And, realistically, only Asia since New Zealand is the only country in Oceania capable of hosting, and they'd likely need to co-host with Australia just like they did at this summer's Women's World Cup.

That's something the skeptics were quick to jump on.  Saudi Arabia has already announced its intention to bid for 2034.  Australia, which just hosted the Women's World Cup and is hosting the 2032 Olympics in Brisbane (as well as the 2027 Rugby World Cup), has indicated an interest, too, likely another co-hosting effort with New Zealand.  But the Asian Football Confederation's stated preference is Saudi Arabia.  Which is exactly what FIFA wants.

If there's one thing that's certain about FIFA, it's that they're never gonna pass up an opportunity to make even more money.  They don't care where that money comes from, either.  That's why they went to Qatar and, even after all of the problems with that World Cup, they seem poised to do it again.  Saudi Arabia's got plenty of money, and FIFA's more than willing to let them spend some of it.

Just think about some of the other ways the Saudis have flaunted their wealth in the last few years alone.  They started and fully funded LIV Golf, luring some of the top golfers away from the PGA Tour with multimillion dollar salaries.  It's not just golfers, either.  Now they're luring top soccer players, too.  Cristiano Ronaldo was the first to sign with a Saudi club, and he started an exodus from the top European leagues to Saudi Arabia.  Like their neighbors in Qatar, the Saudis were obviously thinking bigger.  They wanted a World Cup.

We really should've seen this coming when the Saudi prince was spotted palling around with Gianni Infantino at the Women's World Cup.  That's what this is really all about.  Maybe FIFA actually couldn't decide between the Iberian and CONMEBOL bids.  And I do believe they wanted to honor the legacy of the World Cup centennial in some way.  Neither of those is the reason why they went with this six-country/three-continent compromise, though.  It's because they want 2034 to be in Saudi Arabia.

Regardless of the reasoning, however, FIFA's moving ahead with this ridiculous plan for 2030.  Maybe it'll work out.  After all, UEFA pulled off the pan-continental Euro in 2021.  But there's a lot of risk and they've opened themselves up to a ton of criticism that's completely justified.  So, really, it's just another example of FIFA being FIFA.

MLB Playoff Preview

Most of the season, I was saying I thought it would be a Braves-Rangers World Series.  They just looked like the two best teams.  Spoiler alert: That's still my World Series pick as the playoffs begin.  Yes, I know that Texas is the 5-seed in the AL.  I don't care.  Look at the Phillies last year.  They made the World Series as a 6-seed.  So, yeah, I'm sticking with Texas-Atlanta.

Last year was the first with the new format, and both National League teams that had byes lost in the Division Series to a division rival.  As a result, the Braves have decided to have open workouts that they're treating like simulated games throughout the week so that they aren't just sitting around.  One season is nowhere near enough of a sample size, but if it happens again this year, it really will be enough to make you wonder if getting that first-round bye is really an advantage when it means you're sitting around for a week while your opponent is playing.

Because the lockout delayed the end of the season and the start of the playoffs last season, they had to shoehorn the extra wild card games into the existing postseason schedule, which made it very condensed.  This year, they were able to properly build the Wild Card Series into the schedule, and the result is the World Series starting on a Friday (which means that, unless there's a rainout, they avoid going up against Sunday Night Football).  So, it'll be a little more "normal," but that week off is still there (and will be there moving forward), so I'd like to see what kind of an affect it has.

For Atlanta, I don't think it's gonna matter.  I get real '98 Yankees vibes from the Braves, and they could very well see Ronald Acuna, Jr. and Matt Olson go 1-2 in NL MVP voting.  Although, I said the same thing about the Dodgers last year, which shows you how much I know.

So, I've already teased a Braves-Rangers World Series.  But how will we get there?  Here's how I see everything playing out.  October baseball!  There's nothing like it.

Twins-Blue Jays: At least they aren't playing the Yankees.  The Twins have lost 18 consecutive playoff games, with the Yankees responsible for 13 of those defeats.  While it's possible they'll get their first playoff win since 2004, it doesn't seem likely.  Toronto is the better team and didn't have to use Kevin Gausman on Sunday, meaning he's available for Game 1.  Then it's Jose Berrios.  The Chris Bassitt.  Advantage Blue Jays.

Rays-Rangers: I kinda spoiled this one, didn't I?  By losing that last game in Seattle, the Rangers not only cost themselves Division Series home field and a bye, it made their path significantly more difficult since they'll now have to go through both AL East teams.  This was a matchup that looked like it could be the ALCS for most of the season.  Instead, one won't even be in the Division Series.  That team will be Tampa Bay.  The Rangers recovered from their rough patch just in time and played some good baseball in September.  Which should serve them well in October.

Brewers-Diamondbacks: Milwaukee is a sneaky good team.  You overlook them until suddenly they're winning the NL Central.  And they certainly have the pitching to be competitive in October.  This is a very interesting series, though.  Because the Diamondbacks weren't able to line up their pitching, which means they can't use Merrill Kelly until Game 3.  Which gives them a huge advantage should they split the first two games.  It's imperative for the Brewers to sweep this series.

Phillies-Marlins: Congratulations to the Marlins on making the playoffs in a full season for the first time in 20 years.  And thankfully they didn't have to fly to New York just to play the final 20 minutes of a game against the Mets.  Unfortunately, they headed to Philadelphia instead, where the defending National League champions have their two aces ready to go in Games 1 & 2 of the Wild Card Series.  And they don't have Sandy Alcantara to counter.

Orioles-Rangers: Baltimore lost 100 games two years ago.  This season, they won 101 and earned the No. 1 seed in the American League.  They've got so much young talent that they're gonna be good for a while, too.  It's their first go-round on the postseason stage, though.  I don't think their hitters will be overwhelmed, but I'm not sure they have the pitching depth.  And now they don't have their closer.  That's why, even though they're the No. 1 seed, I can't take Baltimore.

Astros-Blue Jays: The Astros have been to six consecutive ALCS and won four pennants since 2017.  And, as they showed last week, getting it done on the road to clinch the division and the bye (when Texas led the AL West virtually the entire season), it would be unwise to count them out.  This is the time of year when they thrive.  An Astros-Blue Jays series has the potential to be a lot of fun.  Ultimately, though, I think that Houston ALCS streak reaches seven.

Braves-Phillies: If there's one team that has a realistic shot at knocking off the Braves, it's probably the Phillies.  They beat them in the Division Series last year and the pitching matchup is even with Wheeler and Nola opposite Strider and Elder.  The Braves also have Charlie Morton and Max Fried, though.  That's the difference.  Not to mention the fact that their offense did some historic things this season.  (Am I partial to the Braves because I went to a game there this season and that stadium is absolutely beautiful?  Maybe.  But, even if I hadn't, this Braves team is damn good!)

Dodgers-Brewers: This was supposed to be a down year for the Dodgers.  It was gonna be the Padres who'd rule the NL West.  We should've known better.  The Dodgers did their thing, again, won 100 games, again, and won the NL West, again.  This isn't even their best team, either.  But they're the Dodgers and it's October.  It's like the Astros in October.  And you know they'll be out to prove that last year was an anomaly.  The Brewers won't have enough firepower to hang with them.

Astros-Rangers: They finished tied atop the AL West, with Houston winning the season series and thus holding the tiebreaker (that's why they went with 13 division games in the new schedule, BTW).  Should it go seven, that home field advantage definitely could come into play.  These two are so evenly matched, though.  And, really, I'm just picturing that Verlander vs. Scherzer matchup--the two guys who started the season as the co-aces of the Mets pitching against each other for the AL pennant.

Braves-Dodgers: In 2020, they played an epic NLCS where the Braves went up 3-1 only for the Dodgers to win three straight en route to a World Series title.  Atlanta, of course, went on to win the World Series the next year.  They aren't just the top two teams in the National League.  They're the two best teams in baseball.  And this could be another epic NLCS.  Three years ago in that crazy COVID season, the Dodgers were a team of destiny.  This year, it's the Braves who feel like that.

Braves-Rangers: As I earlier, I've had an Atlanta-Texas World Series pretty much since the All*Star break.  The Rangers were already good when they went out and improved their team at the deadline.  That's what the Braves did two years ago.  It resulted in a championship.  This year, they didn't need to.  They've been dominant since April.  There's really no other way I see this postseason ending than with the Braves doing something even their 90s dynasty couldn't.  Winning a second World Series with the same core group.  They could end up with more than two.