Team Champions, Two Years Later

Nearly two years after the Closing Ceremony in Beijing, the final medals of the 2022 Winter Olympics are set to be awarded.  The Court of Arbitration for Sport has finally announced its ruling in the Kamila Valiyeva doping case that dominated the second week of those Games.  After two years of hearings and appeals, the decision was to hand Valiyeva a backdated four-year ban and strip her of all results from the time of the failed test (Christmas 2021), including the Olympics, where she helped "ROC" win gold in the team event.

With Valiyeva's disqualification, "ROC" is set to be stripped of the gold and the United States will be upgraded from silver to gold.  Japan will go from bronze to silver.  What's unclear is whether the entire team will be disqualified or just Valiyeva.  That matters since even without her 20 points, Russia would still have enough to win the bronze over Canada.  I expect to be the former, though, and Canada will get the bronze.

Because of the whole situation, there was never a medal ceremony for the team event during those Olympics.  The Americans went home with nothing and have been waiting almost two years to find out whether they're getting gold or silver medals.  Now they know, and the plans for a proper medal ceremony can begin.  My guess is they'll be awarded at this year's World Championships in Montreal, finally bringing closure to a two-year saga that was just sad all around.

First, a brief recap of the events.  After Kamila Valiyeva skated for Russia in the women's portion of the Olympic team event, the news broke that she had failed her doping test at the Russian Championships. RUSADA allowed her to compete in the women's event pending her appeal, with the IOC, ISU and WADA appealing the decision to the CAS.  The CAS ruled that she could compete while the process played out, but Valiyeva (who, it must be noted was 15 at the time) cracked under the pressure and scrutiny and ended up finishing fourth.  So, the medals in the women's competition were able to be awarded in Beijing after all.

The fact that Valiyeva was 15 at the time was really the whole heart of the debate.  Athletes are considered minors until they're 16, which gives them additional protections under international anti-doping code.  One of those protections is confidentiality (which was obviously no longer possible after the story broke following her performance in the team event).  Another is that the penalties are often not as severe, typically in the form of a reprimand instead of a suspension.  The athletes' coaches and entourage are also subject to scrutiny.

Valiyeva's argument was that her positive test was the result of a trace amount of her sample being tainted by a small amount of her grandfather's heart medication.  RUSADA believed her explanation and found her to not be at fault, which is why they lifted her suspension.  There were also questions about the handling of the test and the fact that it took six weeks for the lab in Stockholm to return the results.  That delay and the short time frame to make a decision were the primary reasons why CAS allowed her to compete in the women's event in Beijing.

However, in its decision on Monday, CAS ruled that Russian anti-doping rules don't differentiate between minors and those over 16.  As such, Valiyeva was at fault for her positive test and the suspension was warranted.  As a result, they imposed the recommended four-year period of ineligibility, backdated to the original failed test, as well as the disqualification of any results.  Valiyeva's suspension is set to end on Christmas 2025, just weeks before the Milan Cortina Games.  Which may not even make a difference since all Russian figure skaters have been banned from international competition since shortly after the Beijing Olympics because of the invasion of Ukraine.

While this sad chapter appears to be over, there truly are no winners in the situation.  You could even argue that Valiyeva is one of the biggest victims here.  We'll never know if she deliberately took a banned substance or not, but you can't say her team didn't fail her.  There was some intent by someone close to her.  Beyond that, though, the public scrutiny that she received during the final week of the 2022 Olympics would be a lot for anyone to deal with, let alone a 15-year-old.  Then, after she cracked under the pressure, the way her coach treated her was downright cruel.  

Then there are her Russian teammates.  None of them did anything wrong, yet they're all poised to lose an Olympic gold medal based on something that was completely out of their control.  The medals for the team event haven't been reallocated yet, but the entire Russian team will almost certainly be disqualified.  And the ironic thing about that is Russia could've swapped out Valiyeva for Anna Shcherbakova (who won the individual women's event) and won gold anyway.

Shcherbakova and Alexandra Trusova were victims of this whole situation, too.  If you go back to the women's free skate in Beijing, you'll remember seeing the distraught Valiyeva and the eyes of the world on her.  There was also the disappointed Trusova who considered her silver medal to be a failure.  Meanwhile, Shcherbakova, the newly crowned Olympic champion, was standing there all alone.  It was the biggest moment of her life and no one was there to celebrate with her.

And, of course, there are the American and Japanese skaters.  They earned medals that they still haven't received.  The reason why makes sense.  I'm not saying it doesn't.  But, they've been waiting two years.  It's been two years and they still haven't gotten the chance to properly celebrate their Olympic achievement.  Of the 10 Americans poised to receive gold medals, only the ice dance team of Madison Chock and Evan Bates (the defending World Champions who just won their fifth U.S. title) are even still competing.

The same can be said for the Canadian skaters who've been waiting this whole time to find out if they even are Olympic medalists.  The answer to that question is "Yes."  Once the results are adjusted, Canada will likely go from fourth place to the bronze medal.  They were the forgotten team in all of this.  Because the Valiyeva decision didn't ultimately impact just three teams.  It impacted four.

If there's one fortunate thing about all this, it's that the World Championships are in Montreal.  The medals haven't been officially reallocated yet, but once they are, IOC rules call for a reallocation ceremony.  Although, there was never a medal ceremony at all, so in this case, it would be the medal ceremony.  There are provisions for when and where it can take place, but can you think of a more appropriate time and place?  Especially since the opening night of the World Championships doesn't include any free skates?

Don't make them wait any longer.  It's already been two years of waiting.  Two years without an Olympic medal of any color.  Now that the situation's resolved, start planning that medals ceremony.  Six weeks from now in Montreal, let the American, Japanese and Canadian skaters finally get a chance to put those medals around their necks and celebrate what they did in Beijing.  Let's put this sad, sorry chapter to bed once and for all.

USA Basketball In Paris

Earlier this week, USA Basketball announced the player pools for the Paris Olympics.  The men's and women's Olympic teams won't necessarily be pulled from these groups of players.  Names can be added or dropped between now and the Olympic roster deadline.  But, it's safe to say that the bulk of the Olympic rosters will come from these preliminary lists.

The men's preliminary pool is a veritable Who's Who of NBA All-Stars with varying degrees of Olympic experience.  LeBron is a veteran of three Olympics, although he's skipped the last two.  Kevin Durant is also a three-time Olympian, having won gold in London, Rio and Tokyo.  Other gold medalists among the 41 names include Kyrie Irving, James Harden, Chris Paul, Paul George, Anthony Davis and Devin Booker.

Steph Curry, meanwhile, has never played in the Olympics.  You'd think his participation in Paris is entirely up to him.  If he wants to play and finally get the chance to be an Olympian, he's on the team.  Same with Joel Embiid, who had his choice of three different countries to play for (United States, France, Cameroon), but ended up decided to play for the U.S. (despite quite the push by the home team).

Embiid deciding to play for the U.S. was a huge win for a team that will desperately need his size.  That was their biggest weakness at the World Cup last year, where the undersized, guard-heavy squad was exploited inside in its semifinal and bronze medal losses to Germany and Canada.  That fourth-place showing was leaps and bounds better than its finish at the 2019 World Cup, but they know the teams they'll see in Paris will be much better.  Fortunately, so will the American team.

It's no secret that USA Basketball places more of an emphasis on the Olympics than the World Cup.  This is especially true now that the World Cup and Olympics are in back-to-back offseasons.  They obviously want to win the World Cup, but the main goal is finishing high enough to directly qualify for the Olympics and avoid the last-chance tournament.  Then, an entirely new roster consisting almost entirely of NBA superstars will go for gold at the Olympics.

We're finally back to a normal schedule, too, which, you would think, would result in more players making themselves available for the Olympics this year.  I can't blame them for passing on Tokyo when the 2020 bubble season didn't end until October, then the 2020-21 season started on Christmas and ran literally right until the Olympics started.  Devin Booker's one of the few guys whose team went on a deep playoff run who did commit to the Olympic team, and he immediately got on a plane right after the last game of the NBA Finals, arriving in Tokyo the night before the first game.

This time, the NBA season will end in mid-June, more than a month before the Olympics start in late July.  There will even be time to have a training camp and exhibition games before the team leaves for Paris.  That and the fact they all know gold is by no means a guarantee, so they have to send the absolute best team possible.  It's not the 2008 "Redeem Team," but it figures to be the deepest and best Olympic men's team USA Basketball has had since then.

So good, in fact, that there will be some marquee names left off the roster.  It can't just be the 12 most talented guys.  It has to be 12 players who complement each other and fill the roles that are needed.  Somebody has to be OK with being the last guy off the bench.  And it can't be 12 shooting guards/small forwards.  You need to have at least three (preferably four) big men to rotate in and out, as well as at least two point guards.

There will be obvious considerations such as injuries and/or deep playoff runs, but I'm building my 12-man mock roster based only on who I'd choose without any restrictions.  I went with three point guards, three bigs and six wings.  This is the team I'd take to Paris:

Point Guards: Stephen Curry, Tyrese Haliburton, Damian Lillard
Shooting Guards/Small Forwards: Devin Booker, Jimmy Butler, Kevin Durant, James Harden, LeBron James, Kawhi Leonard
Power Forwards/Centers: Bam Adebayo, Joel Embiid, Jayson Tatum

On the women's side, I can see Caitlin Clark, who'll soon be a WNBA rookie playing for Indiana making the Olympic team, if for no other reason than to give her the experience before she becomes one of the team's mainstays for the next decade and a half.  Speaking of mainstays, Diana Taurasi, who said the Tokyo Olympics would be her last, is on the 18-player preliminary roster.  If she does go to Paris, the 41-year-old five-time gold medalist would become the oldest Olympic basketball player in history.

Taurasi's Phoenix Mercury teammate Brittany Griner, meanwhile, is back in the National Team pool.  After her ordeal in Russia, she said that the only reason she'll ever leave the country again would be to play in the Olympics.  Even after that forced year off, she's still one of the top post players in the WNBA, so there's no reason to think she won't be selected.

That's the thing about the U.S. women's team.  One of the reasons they've been so good for so long isn't just because they have the best players.  It's because the roster is remarkably consistent.  These women play together at international tournaments year after year.  Not only does it lead to a dynamic where they know each other extremely well, it results in there actually being very little turnover.  Injury, retirement or someone else being better and taking your spot are really the only reasons.  Which still happens plenty!

As it does every four (or five...or three) years, the WNBA will take a midseason Olympic break.  The All*Star Game is the final game before everyone leaves for Paris, and it wouldn't surprise me if most, if not all, of the Olympians are on the All*Star rosters.  In the past, they've even changed the format in Olympic years to have the Olympic team take on the remaining WNBA All*Stars, so it wouldn't surprise me if they do that again.

Either way, the United States will be heavily favored to win its eighth consecutive Olympic gold medal in women's basketball, which would be the record for any team sport.  I do think Caitlin Clark will be on the team, while the rest of the roster will be heavy on Olympic experience.  I've got seven Olympic veterans including Kelsey Plum, who was on the gold-medal-winning 3x3 team in Tokyo.  Plum plays the 5-on-5 version in Paris along with:

Guards: Caitlin Clark, Chelsea Gray, Sabrina Ionescu, Jewell Loyd, Arike Ogunbowale, Kelsey Plum, Diana Taurasi
Forwards/Centers: Aliyah Boston, Brittany Griner, Breana Stewart, Alyssa Thomas, A'ja Wilson

2023 NFL Picks, Conference Championships

There are so many interesting storylines surrounding this season's Conference Championship Games and all four potential Super Bowl matchups.  One of the most fascinating to me is how neither of the Conference Championships is a regular season rematch, but three of the four Super Bowl matchups would be.  The only one that isn't is Chiefs-49ers.  Baltimore and Detroit played both of their potential opponents during the season, in fact.  The Ravens blew out both the Lions and 49ers, while that Lions win over the Chiefs on opening night set the stage for their season to come.

Then there's this one about the 49ers.  They won each of their first five Super Bowl appearances, but have lost their last two.  Their opponents in those two games?  Baltimore and Kansas City. 

And, this didn't dawn on me until I was at the Paley Center Super Bowl exhibit and they had a section about the halftime shows.  We all know about Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce, so, it's probably safe to assume she'll be in Las Vegas for the Super Bowl if the Chiefs win.  And Detroit native Eminem is a regular at Lions games.  So, we already know there will be plenty of celebrities at the Super Bowl...especially with the game in Las Vegas.  But, Chiefs-Lions would give us Taylor Swift vs. Eminem.

What's funny, too, is that the Chiefs have essentially become the Patriots.  If you ask anyone who they want to win, the answer will probably be something along the lines of "anybody but the Chiefs."  And, if you think back, the Chiefs really have taken over the Patriots' role.  Tom Brady's last AFC Championship Game was Patrick Mahomes' first.  And Kansas City's been in every AFC Championship Game since then.

Of course, for most people, the answer to the question "who do you want to win?" is Detroit.  The Lions won a grand total of one playoff game in 56 years between winning the 1957 NFL Championship Game and last season.  They've now won two in two weeks.  And they're the only NFC team that's never been to the Super Bowl, so it's easy to see why they're the sentimental favorite.  Except in maybe San Francisco, Kansas City, Baltimore, Chicago and Green Bay.

One last note before I actually start talking about the games.  The NFC Championship Game is in San Francisco.  That's nothing new.  The 49ers have hosted it a lot.  The AFC Championship Game, meanwhile, is in Baltimore for the first time since the 1970 season, when the Colts hosted the very first one.  Both of the Ravens' AFC titles came on the road, and they've also lost twice on the road.  This is their first one at home.

Chiefs (13-6) at Ravens (14-4): Kansas City-Playing on the road is a challenge that Kansas City embraced last week.  It's been rare that the Chiefs have felt they had anything to prove during this run, but they certainly did against the Bills.  And they proved it.  It was another classic between those two, but the Chiefs got the job done on that last drive and forced the field goal attempt.  And we all know how that turned out.

That might've been the Chiefs' best all-around effort of the season, in fact.  The offense moved the ball better and Mahomes finally had viable options other than Kelce.  And I don't think Kansas City's defense gets enough credit.  They haven't allowed 30 points in a game all season.  That's why they were able to keep winning games while the offense was struggling, and it's what gives them a chance against the Ravens' mighty offense.

Baltimore, meanwhile, was utterly dominant against Houston.  The Texans' only touchdown game on a punt return.  The Ravens defense limited the Houston offense to just a field goal while Lamar Jackson and the Baltimore offense looked as good as it has all year.  They've been a Super Bowl favorite for most of the season, and they sure looked like a Super Bowl team in the Divisional round.

This matchup really is fascinating.  Both teams have an MVP quarterback leading an offense that can put up points on anybody.  But they've also both got a defense that's capable of shutting even the best offenses down.  It seems more likely that this'll be a shootout than a defensive struggle.  Yet you also get the feeling that one big play on defense will be what decides the game.

While I can easily see either team winning, I think it's Kansas City's defense that makes the big play.  Mahomes has been in this situation before.  This is the sixth straight time, in fact.  Lamar hasn't.  He'll be the one to make the costly mistake and the Chiefs head to their fourth Super Bowl in five years.

Lions (14-5) at 49ers (13-5): San Francisco-In the NFC, we've got an interesting situation where the visiting team in the Championship Game actually has more wins than the home team.  That's something that hasn't happened since the 70s, when the home team alternated by division rather than the teams being seeded by record.  It's, of course, only a result of the Lions playing an extra game because the 49ers had the bye, but it's interesting nonetheless.

The Lions played two fantastic games in the first two rounds.  Against the Rams, they scored on their first three drives before it was the defense that won it for them at the end.  Then against the Bucs, they had two long drives in the fourth quarter drive to take the lead before the defense once again closed it out with an interception.  This is a team that looked very capable of not just getting to the Super Bowl, but winning it.

However, both of those games were in Detroit.  Now they hit the road, where they haven't won a playoff game since 1957.  They'll obviously be the sentimental favorite, but not having the home crowd could end up making a huge difference.  Especially since they're taking on a 49ers team that doesn't want to lose another NFC Championship Game.

San Francisco is here for the third straight season and the fourth time in five years.  They've only won a single NFC title during that span, though.  However, there's a big difference between this year's game and their losses to the Rams and Eagles.  This time, they're playing at home.  And, unlike last year, they actually have a healthy quarterback and an offense that's firing on all cylinders (to go along with their elite defense).

Green Bay almost pulled off the massive upset last week, so this will by no means be a 49ers runaway.  Ultimately, though, I think playing at home, having the rest and, frankly, being the better team will be the difference.  The Lions have had a magical run.  Unfortunately, as much as I'd love to see it continue, I think their run comes to an end one game short of the Super Bowl.  The one potential Super Bowl matchup we didn't see in the regular season is the one we'll get.  The 49ers and Chiefs meet again four years later.

Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 7-3
Overall: 175-107

France's Other Olympic Centennial

This summer, the Olympics return to Paris for the third time...exactly 100 years since the city last hosted the Games.  That anniversary is, obviously, very important to the French.  And rightfully so.  It isn't the only Olympic centennial worth celebrating in 2024, though.  January 25, 2024 marks 100 years since the Opening Ceremony of the inaugural Winter Olympics, held in the French Alps town of Chamonix. 

They weren't even referred to as the "Winter Olympics" at the time.  It was called the "International Winter Sports Week."  The event was such a success that the IOC decided in 1925 to officially organize both Summer AND Winter Olympics, with the Chamonix Games retroactively declared the first Winter Games.  "Retroactive" is a word that would later be applied to the allocation of medals in two different events many, many years later.

In the ski jumping competition, the bronze medal was initially awarded to Norway's Thorleif Haug.  However, it was discovered in 1974 that Haug's score had been determined incorrectly and American Anders Haugen, who finished fourth, had actually scored 0.095 points higher than him.  The IOC confirmed the error and Haugen was presented his bronze medal by Haug's daughter 50 years after the competition.  It's still the only Olympic ski jumping medal ever won by an American.

The curling competition, meanwhile, featured teams from Great Britain, France and Sweden playing a round-robin tournament, with the Brits taking gold.  It was Great Britain's only gold medal in Chamonix, but was considered unofficial for many years, since curling was thought to be a demonstration sport.  Finally, in 2006, the IOC ruled that the 1924 curling tournament was an official Olympic event.

Including curling, there were only 16 medal events in Chamonix.  They weren't the first Olympic medals ever awarded in winter sports, however.  There was a hockey tournament at the 1920 Summer Games in Antwerp, with Canada winning the gold.  The Canadians defended their title by absolutely dominating the competition in Chamonix, winning all six of their games and outscoring their opponents 99-3.

Figure skating, meanwhile, had been contested at two previous Summer Games.  The first figure skating events were held in 1908, and the second Olympic figure skating competition took place in 1920.  Sweden's Gillis Grafstrom won the gold medal that year.  Like the Canadian hockey team, he'd go on to defend his Olympic title in Chamonix...and win a third four years later in St. Moritz.  He remains the only man ever to win three straight Olympic gold medals in men's figure skating.

There were only a handful of women competing in Chamonix, all of whom were figure skaters entered in the ladies' and pairs events.  The ladies singles champion was Austria's Herma Szabo.  The most significant name in the competition might've been the last-place finisher, though.  Sonja Henie was just 11 years old at the time.  Four years later, a 15-year-old Henie won her first of three straight Olympic gold medals in the event.  After the 1936 Olympics, she retired from skating and began an acting career that would see her become one of the highest-paid stars in Hollywood.

Every event, including figure skating and hockey, was held outdoors, in the elements, at the foot of Mount Blanc.  Most of them were held at the Olympic Stadium, which still stands.  The first of those events was the 500 meters in speed skating.  The gold medal went to American Charles Jewtraw.  Twenty-eight years after another American--James Connolly--won the triple jump in Athens to become the first-ever gold medalist in the history of the Modern Olympics, Jewtraw became the first Winter Olympic champion.  It was the only gold medal for the United States in Chamonix.

Norway and Finland led the way with four gold medals apiece, and the Norwegians authored the only two medal sweeps.  The same three men, in fact, finished in the exact same order in both the 50 kilometer cross country race (which is still one of the marquee events on the Winter Olympic program) and the Nordic combined competition.  Thorleif Haug (the same Haug who was originally awarded the bronze in ski jumping) won both gold medals, followed by Thoralf Stromstad (silver) and Johan Grottumsbraten (bronze).

Finnish speed skater Clas Thunberg was by far the most successful athlete at the Games.  He won a medal in all five events--three gold, a silver and a bronze.  Norway's Roald Larsen also went 5-for-5 in speed skating medals, winning two silver and three bronze.  (This feat of medaling in every speed skating event was equaled by Eric Heiden in 1980.  Heiden, however, won five golds.)  Finland's Julius Skutnabb also won three medals, so 13 of the 16 speed skating medals were split between the three (Thunberg and Larsen tied for bronze in the 500).

While Norway and Finland dominated the medal count, 10 of the 16 participating nations took home at least one medal, including eight that earned at least one gold.  The total number of competitors is a subject of debate, but the IOC's figure is 258 total athletes, so we'll go with that.  They contested 16 medal events in nine sports, one of which would never be on the Winter Olympic program again after Chamonix.

Much like the curling tournament, the military patrol competition is incorrectly considered unofficial or a demonstration event by many sources.  The IOC considers it a separate discipline, while the 1924 Official Report lists it as an event within the sport of skiing.  Regardless, Switzerland's four-man team took the gold over Finland and France (it was France's only medal).  Military patrol would return as a demonstration sport three times (1928, 1936, 1948), but was never again an official medal event.  Eventually, military patrol became biathlon, which has been a part of the Winter Olympics since 1960.

I didn't know this until I started researching this post, but there's a Twitter/X account called "Chamonix 1924" that's dedicated entirely to these inaugural Winter Olympics.  The account was only active six years ago, but it's incredible!  Whoever ran it did an outstanding job, and you can see the level of care that was put in.  There are even photos and news clippings (in French!) from the actual event in 1924.  I highly recommend checking it out!

Later this year, we'll rightly celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 1924 Summer Games when the Olympics return to Paris.  It's the competition held several months earlier that turned out to be much more historically significant, however.  A century ago in Chamonix, France, the Winter Olympics were born.

At Least One First-Ballot Lock

Last year at this time, I was left wondering who, if anybody, would be voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.  Fred McGriff had already been elected by the Eras Committee, but I genuinely thought the writers might pitch a shutout.  That turned out not to be the case, and Scott Rolen received the call to join McGriff in Cooperstown last summer.

This year, I have no such concern.  Jim Leyland will definitely have company.  That's because there's a sure-fire first-ballot Hall of Famer who becomes eligible this year--Adrian Beltre.  Joe Mauer's also in his first year of eligibility, so it's entirely possible we'll have two first-timers elected.  And they might not be the only two, either.  Will Todd Helton and/or Billy Wagner finally get enough support?

As for my "ballot," eight of the 10 players I "voted" for last year return to the ballot.  Rolen got inducted and Jeff Kent fell off after 10 years.  So, that means I've got two spots available.  It should be pretty obvious who's getting them.  But do I add somebody else and drop someone I had down in 2023?

1. Adrian Beltre, Third Baseman (1998-2004 Dodgers, 2005-09 Mariners, 2010 Red Sox, 2011-18 Rangers): Adrian Beltre will cruise past the required 75 percent...and rightfully so!  He was the first third baseman with both 3,000 hits and 400 home runs, and he hit 100 homers for three different teams (Dodgers, Mariners, Rangers).  He also played Gold Glove defense.  Beltre had monster seasons in his contract years with the Dodgers and Red Sox, but he'll be wearing a Rangers hat on his plaque.  All of his career milestones were achieved in Texas, and the Rangers retired his number in 2019 (the year after he retired).

2. Joe Mauer, Catcher (2004-18 Twins): No offense to Johnny Bench or Mike Piazza, but Joe Mauer was the greatest-hitting catcher in history.  A Minnesota boy, he was drafted No. 1 overall by the hometown Twins in 2001 and played his entire 15-year career with the team.  Mauer is the only American League catcher ever to win a batting title.  He won three of them.  He also won three Gold Gloves and was the AL MVP in 2009.  Mauer hit .365 that season, the highest average ever for a catcher.  He spent the last five years of his career playing first base and DH, but his 10 years as a full-time catcher were extraordinary!

3. Andy Pettitte, Pitcher (1995-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007-10 Yankees, 2012-13 Yankees): I've made my peace with the fact that it's highly unlikely Andy Pettitte will get voted into the Hall of Fame by the writers.  That's not gonna stop me from putting his down every year until he falls off the ballot!  Pettitte was a key member of five Yankees World Series championship teams, and he's the all-time MLB leader with 19 postseason wins.  He won more games in the 2000s than any other pitcher and is the Yankees' all-time strikeouts leader, but the postseason success is enough for me.

4. Carlos Beltran, Outfielder (1998-2004 Royals, 2004 Astros, 2005-11 Mets, 2011 Giants, 2012-13 Cardinals, 2014-16 Yankees, 2016 Rangers, 2017 Astros): Beltran got a little under 50 percent of the vote last year, his first on the ballot.  That's a little lower than I expected, but still bodes well for him to eventually get in.  Beltran was an outstanding postseason performer throughout his career (although, he was the only player publicly named in the Astros' 2017 sign-stealing scandal).  A nine-time All*Star and three-time Gold Glove winner, he hit 400 home runs and stole 300 bases.

5. Andruw Jones, Outfielder (1996-2007 Braves, 2008 Dodgers, 2009 Rangers, 2010 White Sox, 2011-12 Yankees): With all due respect to Ken Griffey, Jr., Andruw Jones was the greatest center fielder of the late 90s and early 2000s, winning 10 consecutive Gold Gloves from 1998-2007.  He was a pretty damn good hitter too!  He led the National League in both homers and RBIs in 2005, and he finished with 434 and 1289 for his career.  And, to think, he was only the second-best Jones on those Braves teams!

6. Todd Helton, First Baseman (1997-2013 Rockies): There's a very good chance that Peyton Manning's college backup and roommate will be elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame this year.  Helton's the leading vote-getter among those returning to the ballot, and he came damn close in 2023 with 72.2 percent of the vote.  So, I think Larry Walker won't be the only one wearing a Colorado Rockies hat on his plaque pretty soon.  Helton's certainly deserving.  A career .316 hitter who could also be counted on for 30 homers and around 100 RBIs while also playing a Gold Glove first base year-in and year-out.

7. Billy Wagner, Pitcher (1995-2003 Astros, 2004-05 Phillies, 2006-09 Mets, 2009 Red Sox, 2010 Braves): Will Billy Wagner get enough of a bump to go from 68.1 percent in 2023 to the necessary 75 percent in 2024?  He's been trending upward since his debut on the ballot in 2016, and it sure looks likley he'll get in either this year or next.  Wagner's one of eight closers all-time with 400 saves.  Three of the other seven are in the Hall of Fame and two are active.  He had longevity as a closer, too.  Wagner finished among the top 10 NL saves leaders 10 different times.

8. Gary Sheffield, Outfielder (1988-91 Brewers, 1992-93 Padres, 1993-98 Marlins, 1998-2001 Dodgers, 2002-03 Braves, 2004-06 Yankees, 2007-08 Tigers, 2009 Mets): Gary Sheffield played for so many teams for such short stints that, if he ever does eventually get in, it'll be interesting to see which team they put on his hat.  (I actually think it would be the Marlins, where he won his only World Series ring.)  Anyway, the reason Sheffield was on so many teams was because they all wanted him.  And he produced for all of them, too.  Sheffield had 100 RBIs for five different teams and finished with 509 career home runs.

9. Omar Vizquel, Shortstop (1989-93 Mariners, 1994-2004 Indians, 2005-08 Giants, 2009 Rangers, 2010-11 White Sox, 2012 Blue Jays): Whether I vote for Omar Vizquel or not depends almost entirely on who else is on the ballot that year.  For a while, he wasn't among the 10 best players eligible, so I didn't put him down.  Other years he is, so I do.  I understand that a vote for Vizquel is controversial because of his legal issues.  But I can't ignore what he did on the baseball field as a tremendous defensive shortstop for nearly a quarter of a century.

10. Mark Buehrle, Pitcher (2000-11 White Sox, 2012 Marlins, 2013-15 Blue Jays): Oh man, did I have a hard time deciding between Mark Buehrle and David Wright for the final spot!  Ultimately, I decided to stick with Buehrle, who was also my 10th selection last year.  They were both outstanding at their peak, but Buehrle's peak lasted a little longer, which was my tiebreaker.  He was the definition of an ace.  The White Sox could count on him for 200 innings every year, and he won four consecutive Gold Gloves.  There's little to no chance Mark Buerhle will ever actually be elected to the Hall of Fame.  But he was one of the top pitchers in the American League throughout the early 2000s.

So, there you have it.  Other than Wright, the only first-timer I see getting the requisite 5 percent is Chase Utley (who I also briefly considered).  Beltre and Mauer will, of course, get well over 5 percent.  They'll get over 75, in fact.  Beltre, Mauer and Helton get in, with Billy Wagner coming painfully close before taking the stage in 2025, when a certain Japanese outfielder and a big lefty are among the first-time eligibles.

2023 NFL Picks, Divisional

Of the six games last weekend, one was competitive.  The fact that it was Lions-Rams, the most anticipated game of the bunch, which they put on Sunday night for that very reason, sure worked out, but still, other than that one, they were all decided pretty early.  I'm also not sure NBC should be bragging about the Peacock ratings for Chiefs-Dolphins the way they have been because (1) they're just pissing people off more and (2) while a lot of people did sign up for Peacock just to watch the game, the NFL also likely cost itself millions of viewers by not having a non-streaming option.  So, I'm very curious to see what they do with that sixth wild card game moving forward.

Fortunately, this week, streaming is an option, but not the only one.  Although, in a new twist that came as a part of the new TV contract, the Divisional Playoffs are split between the four main broadcast networks for the first time.  Along with getting thrown into the Super Bowl rotation, ESPN/ABC now gets a Divisional Playoff game, which means we get Joe & Troy one more time this season.

Texans (11-7) at Ravens (13-4): Baltimore-After playing 16 consecutive Sunday at 1:00 games, the Texans now play on their third successive Saturday.  Their spot in the Divisional Playoffs is well-earned, too.  First, they won a winner-take-all game in Indianapolis, then they avenged a Christmas Eve loss to the Browns with a truly exceptional defensive performance.  One of the most telling stats from that game is that Houston's offense didn't step on the field for a span of like nine minutes in the third quarter...and the Texans scored 14 points during that span.

Against the top-seeded Ravens, things will be a little different.  There's little debate that Baltimore is the best team in the NFL, and their Week 18 loss to the Steelers in disgusting conditions didn't do anything to change any minds about them.  Lamar Jackson is the likely MVP and as he goes, the Ravens go.  Stopping Baltimore's offense will be the key for Houston, while likely Offensive Rookie of the Year C.J. Stroud will have to figure out a way to do anything against the Ravens' defense.

Houston is the only team in the NFL to have never played in a conference championship game.  There's still that hope for the dream Super Bowl between the Texans and Lions, but Houston has to clear that Divisional Playoff hurdle first.  Unfortunately, it looks like they'll remain winless all-time in Divisional Playoff games.  The Ravens are too good.

Packers (10-8) at 49ers (12-5): San Francisco-No result last week was a bigger surprise than Green Bay-Dallas.  It's not just that the Packers won.  It's that they went into Jerry's World, a place where the Cowboys haven't lost in two years, and completely dominated.  The Dallas defense could do literally nothing to stop them, and the result was a 48-32 shellacking that left the NFC East as the only division not represented on Divisional Playoff weekend.

That was the ninth-ever playoff game between Green Bay and Dallas, the most in history.  The Packers will tie their own record this week when they head to San Francisco for their ninth-ever playoff meeting with the 49ers.  I'd like to say Green Bay will be outclassed by a superior team, but I also thought that about Dallas, and we all know how that turned out!  Going on the road is obviously not a problem, being the underdog is obviously not a problem, and the Packers have a four-game winning streak and loads of confidence.

Still, San Francisco's just better.  The 49ers sat basically their entire starting lineup in Week 18 and still only lost by a point to the Rams.  I think having the only bye in the new format is a huge advantage, too.  They've spent two weeks resting up and, outside of that three-week stretch in the middle of the season, have been consistently good on both sides of the ball all season.  It'll be an uphill battle for the Packers.  San Francisco advances to another NFC Championship Game.

Buccaneers (10-8) at Lions (13-5): Detroit-Call me crazy, but I can see the Detroit Lions in the Super Bowl.  This isn't an "it would be cool to see the Lions finally get there" thought, either.  I legitimately think Detroit can be a Super Bowl team.  Last week, they had the weight of the world on them, and they showed up big time for their first home playoff game in 30 years!  Scoring on their first three drives, then the defense holding the Rams to field goals on three red zone drives in the second half, which proved to be the difference in a 24-23 win.

And now, suddenly, after waiting 30 years for a playoff game in Detroit, they get another one a week later.  It must've been weird for Lions fans to be sitting there cheering for the Packers in Dallas, knowing what a Green Bay victory would mean.  Well, they got it.  They're the first 3-seed ever to host a Divisional Playoff game, and they've got a real shot at ending their 32-year NFC Championship Game drought.

Count out Tampa Bay at your own risk, though.  It was never in doubt against the Eagles on Monday night, and they've had some impressive performances this season.  It's not like they haven't played spoiler before, either.  Still, though, you just get that feeling about the Lions.  In the first 57 years of the Super Bowl's existence, Detroit won a grand total of one playoff game.  They've already doubled that.  Now they'll make it two playoff wins in a row.

Chiefs (12-6) at Bills (12-6): Buffalo-Patrick Mahomes officially plays a road playoff game for the first time in his career.  (I say "officially" because he has played one before.  Even though it was technically considered a "neutral site," the Chiefs played the Bucs in Tampa in Super Bowl LV.  Sorry, but in no way, shape or form, was that a neutral site.)  And it comes against a Bills team that's been waiting for its chance to host the Chiefs.  The last five meetings between the teams, including two in the playoffs, have been in Kansas City, while the Chiefs haven't visited Western New York since 2020.

When they met in Week 14, the Bills were reeling.  They were 6-6 and in 11th place in the AFC.  If they'd loss, there was a very good chance they might not even make the playoffs.  Instead, they went into Arrowhead and got a season-saving 20-17 victory that propelled them on this six-game winning streak.  That win is the reason why this game is in Buffalo, and the reason why Mahomes and Co. had to get on a plane before the Super Bowl for the first time.

It wasn't exactly warm last Saturday night in Kansas City, so I don't think the weather will be a factor.  The hostile crowd sure could be, though.  Especially since, let's not forget, Bills fans aren't particularly fond of the Chiefs.  Not after those two controversial playoff games in recent seasons.  I'm not going to pretend Kansas City can't win this game.  Everyone knows the Chiefs can.  The Bills have just been giving off that aura for more than a month, though.  They finally get the chance to play Kansas City at home.  They won't waste it.

Last Week: 4-2
Overall: 172-106

Florida State vs. the ACC

When Florida State didn't get into the final four-team College Football Playoff, they didn't take it well.  In fact, they said it was the "last straw" in their tenuous relationship with the ACC, and politicians even got involved (which, frankly, was just ridiculous).  Of course, they didn't help their argument at all when half the pissed off team opted out of playing in the Orange Bowl and they got blown out by 60, but that's a whole different conversation!

It's no secret that Florida State's been unhappy in the ACC for a while.  The relationship was strained prior to the Seminoles being left out of the CFP, which I'm not even sure they can actually blame the conference for.  However, for Florida State, it was the "last straw," and the school sued the ACC, claiming they had "no other choice."  Although, while the CFP situation certainly didn't help matters, it wasn't totally the impetus for the lawsuit.  It's something that was already brewing.

This all really goes back to the events set in motion by Texas and Oklahoma joining the SEC that accelerated rapidly over a few weeks last summer as the Pac-12 collapsed.  Florida State sat and watched as the SEC, Big Ten and Big 12 signed lucrative new TV deals that will make their member schools a significant amount of money annually.  They feel that will create a wide enough gap where the ACC teams will not be able to compete with them financially, especially since ACC revenues won't be able to grow because the conference's media rights deal is locked in through the 2035-36 school year.

As a part of the ACC's TV deal, every league member agreed to a "grant of rights," where the conference owns the broadcast rights to all home games.  Even if a school leaves the ACC, the conference retains those rights for the duration of the deal.  And all revenue is distributed equally among the 15 current ACC institutions.  When first signed in 2013 (and amended in 2016), it provided the conference with stability because it essentially locked each school into the ACC for that entire period.

The grant of rights has become the biggest source of contention.  No one is denying that the college sports landscape has changed dramatically since the ACC's original deal was signed.  And not only does Florida State feel like the ACC is being left behind with the SEC and Big Ten agreeing to much more lucrative deals, they also want a bigger piece of the pie.  They don't think it's fair that the revenue is split equally when Florida State football generates more of it than, for example, Boston College basketball.  Instead of equal distribution, they (along with a few other ACC members) want a model that's more proportional.

After everything went down with the Pac-12, Cal and Stanford were the most prestigious schools left in the conference.  Much like Cal and Stanford, the ACC didn't want to get left behind in the realignment shuffle.  So, things moved quickly on ACC expansion into California (with SMU coming along for the ride).  However, when it came time to vote, four schools were against adding Cal and Stanford, enough to prevent it from happening.  Florida State was one of them (along with Clemson, North Carolina and NC State).  NC State eventually changed its vote and the three schools were added, but Florida State remained firm in its opposition.

One of the things that helped change NC State's mind was the three schools agreeing to take a reduced share.  Cal and Stanford will only get a 30 percent share to start, with that amount increasing over time before eventually becoming a full share.  SMU will forego a share altogether for multiple years.  The money those schools are forfeiting will be pooled and go into a "success initiative," rewarding teams financially for their postseason performance in revenue sports (beyond the NCAA Tournament units they earn for the conference as a whole in men's basketball).  Florida State, you would figure, stands to benefit from the "success initiative."

That wasn't enough to satisfy Florida State's Board of Trustees, though, so they filed a lawsuit challenging the conference's grant of rights and exit fee.  Because of the grant of rights, it would cost Florida State $572 million to leave the ACC right now.  Florida State claims that the grant of rights violates antitrust law and is unenforceable.  They also accuse the ACC of breach of contract and believe that the league locked its members into an undervalued and overly long media rights agreement with ESPN.

In the ACC's countersuit, the league claims that Florida State is the one committing breach of contract.  Their main argument is that the exclusive grant of rights is not only binding, but Florida State willingly and knowingly re-signed it in 2016.  The Seminoles haven't just benefitted from the grant of rights agreement, they've never challenged its legitimacy.  Beyond that, the school's lawsuit violates its legal commitments to the other members of the conference.

Florida State issued its lawsuit in Florida, while the ACC filed its countersuit in North Carolina (the conference is based in Charlotte).  The conference amended its complaint earlier this week, adding that the school released confidential information by disclosing details of the TV contract in its Florida court filing.  They've sought a permanent injunction preventing Florida State from discussing the TV contract, while also seeking to bar Florida State from having any role in managing the league's affairs during the litigation.

Both sides are seeking a trial, so it seems like that's certainly where this is headed.  The question is where that trial will be.  Florida State would obviously prefer to have it be in Florida, while the ACC thinks it should be in North Carolina.  Either way, that trial will ultimately decide whether the grant in rights is legally binding or not and, by extension, whether Florida State can leave the ACC prior to its expiration in 2035-36.

No one can predict how this will go because the entire thing is unprecedented.  Every conference has a grant of rights, and no school has ever challenged one.  Florida State seems to know that, too, which is why their suit seems to be throwing everything it can at the fan hoping something will stick.  Really, all they're looking for is to get out of the grant of rights without having to pay the exorbitant exit fee.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what Florida State's ultimate goal here is.  They want to join the SEC, but right now they can't.  So, they want a judge to say they're allowed to leave the ACC early so that they can.  Of course, there's no guarantee that an SEC invitation would be imminent.  But it's also safe to assume that's the likely scenario.  Those conversations have likely already taken place.

And the interest is almost certainly mutual.  Texas and Oklahoma will bring the SEC to 16 members.  The Big Ten will be at 18 after the addition of the four Pac-12 schools.  For that reason alone, you'd have to think the SEC will want to add two more, and Florida State is the most attractive potential option.  So, it's really more of a question when Florida State will leave the ACC for the SEC and who'll join them (Clemson?).

For the ACC, the concern is that this could open the floodgates.  The whole point of the grant of rights is to provide the conference and its members with stability.  If Florida State's able to challenge it successfully, what's to stop other league members leaving for greener pastures?  Then the ACC would conceivably suffer the same fate as the Pac-12.  Can you blame them for trying to avoid that exact scenario?  They didn't want it to come to this, but they also feel like they have no choice.  The ACC's doing this to prevent one disgruntled member from starting a chain reaction that results in the collapse of the entire conference.

I've gotta say, I'm on the ACC's side in this one.  Some of Florida State's points are right.  The college sports media rights landscape is completely different now than it was in 2016, and the ACC's contract isn't as good as the SEC's or Big Ten's.  But that doesn't change the fact they agreed to the deal back then.  They may not like it now, but that's the risk they took.  Willingly.  If they want out, it should cost them.

One Extra Day of Tennis

This year, the Australian Open followed the French Open's lead and became the second Grand Slam tournament with a Sunday start (don't expect Wimbledon or the US Open to follow suit anytime soon).  The reason they gave for the additional day was to reduce the number of late-night finishes.  It's not uncommon for the night session to still be going when Americans are waking up to start their day in the morning, which is after midnight in Australia.  And, obviously, the longer the match, the later the finish.

Except the extra day isn't really gonna help the late finishes at all.  Because the night sessions will still start at the same time (7 p.m. in Australia, 3 a.m. Eastern), so it's not like two long matches will end any earlier.  And all they're using the extra day for was to extend the first round from two days to three.  So, after the first round, the tournament schedule is exactly the same anyway.  Which means the Sunday start will, in practice, only give them two extra sessions for which they can sell tickets.  The late finishes will still happen.

It's funny how ESPN is also bragging about how many more hours of coverage they'll have on ESPN & ESPN2, as opposed to just streaming on ESPN+, this year.  But there's an extra day, so that's more hours right there.  And the rest are the result of them putting those overnight sessions back on ESPN2 after they were only on ESPN+ last year (as if they show anything else at 3 a.m.).  They got plenty of backlash for that, so this is nothing more than a course correction.

ESPN is doing something cool with their coverage, though.  They'll have one-hour highlight shows on ABC on the weekends.  It's not the full replays of the finals like they have at Wimbledon, but it's more than they've done in the past.  And, who knows?  Maybe that's where it's headed.

As for the tournament itself, the biggest story involves the guy who has dominated the Australian Open throughout his career.  And it would only be fitting if Novak Djokovic extends his record with an 11th title (and fifth straight if you exclude 2022, when he wasn't allowed to enter the country).  Because his US Open title was his 24th Grand Slam singles championship, which equaled Margaret Court's all-time record.  Is there any better place for him to win No. 25 and become the solo record-holder?

A healthy Djokovic is always such an overwhelming favorite in Australia that it's tough to say who'll even challenge him.  He hasn't lost a match here since 2018, and he's made the final in 10 of the 11 Grand Slam tournaments he's played in since he defaulted in the fourth round of the 2020 US Open.  Djokovic is already the best player in history, and he's been playing some of the best tennis of his career.  So, yeah, it's his tournament to lose.

Daniil Medvedev is a two-time finalist here and lost to Djokovic in the US Open final, so he's probably the player with the best chance at knocking him off.  Then there's Carlos Alcaraz, the clear No. 2 player in the world.  He's only played in the Australian Open twice in his career and missed last year's tournament with an injury, so this is his first time playing as one of the favorites.  Alcaraz has won both Wimbledon and the US Open, so it's not like the surface will be an issue for him.

There are a few other players who I think can make noise, even if they won't challenge Djokovic.  One is Alexander Zverev, who's still waiting for that first Grand Slam title to go along with his Olympic gold medal from Tokyo.  Stefanos Tsitsipas, meanwhile, made the final last year, losing to Djokovic.  Then there's Andrey Rublev, who's made the quarters at five of the last six Grand Slam tournaments, but has never gone any further.  You've gotta think he's poised for a breakthrough at some point.

Meanwhile, one player is worth noting for not being here.  Rafael Nadal announced last year that he's retiring after the French Open.  This was supposed to be his final Australian Open.  However, last week, in his first tournament back after a long layoff, he tweaked the hip injury that forced him to miss the bulk of 2023.  As a result, he had to withdraw.  Hopefully he can play in the French Open and make a final farewell.

Even if healthy, Nadal would've been a longshot.  Frankly, anybody not named Djokovic is a longshot.  Somebody on the other side of the draw will make the final, though.  And I think that person will be Alexander Zverev (who's beaten him before...he ended Novak's hopes for a Golden Slam in the semifinals of the Tokyo Olympics).

While Nadal's comeback is on hold, the women's tournament is full of players making their return after extended absences.  Former Australian Open champions Naomi Osaka and Angelique Kerber are both back after giving birth last year, while Emma Raducanu has dealt with a myriad of injuries that kept her sidelined for most of 2023.  Caroline Wozniacki is also playing in her first Australian Open since 2020, when she retired from tennis after losing in the third round, only to resume her career last year.

At the US Open, Wozniacki lost a three-set fourth round match to Coco Gauff, who went on to win the title.  And you sure got the feeling that it won't be the only time she lifts the trophy at the end of a Grand Slam final.  Gauff has never been past the fourth round in Australia, but she's never played the tournament as a Grand Slam champion before.  As fate would have it, Wozniacki and Gauff are on track to meet in the quarterfinals, assuming Gauff beats Osaka in the previous round.  So, if she gets through that, she'll certainly be battle tested.

Wozniacki, Osaka and Kerber aren't the only unseeded former champions in the women's draw.  There's also Sofia Kenin, who drew world No. 1 Sofia Kenin in the first round.  Victoria Azarenka, meanwhile, is a two-time champ.  That was a decade ago, however.  The defending champion is Aryna Sabalenka, who also won the US Open and was briefly world No. 1 last year.  Sabalenka's as good a bet as anybody on the women's side.

So is the player she defeated in last year's final--Elena Rybakina.  However, Rybakina will have to go through another American who seems poised for a Grand Slam breakthrough.  Jessica Pegula has gotten as high as No. 3 in the world (she's currently No. 5) despite never having made it past the quarterfinals at a Grand Slam.  She's been to the quarters here in each of the last three years, so you know she's comfortable on these courts.  And she reached the final at the 2023 WTA Finals, which could be the boost she needed to get past that quarterfinal hump (she's 0-6 career in Grand Slam quarterfinals).

I think this is the year that changes.  Pegula's parents own the Buffalo Bills and Sabres, so she's always playing in the Australian Open at the same time the Bills are in the playoffs.  I sense good things for all Pegulas in January 2024.  The Bills are my pick to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl.  And Jessica's my pick to win the Australian Open.

Pegula and Gauff are doubles partners, who made the semis here in doubles last year.  This year, I see them both making the semis in singles, with Gauff losing to Sabalenka.  Pegula then beats Sabalenka in the final, as she follows up her friend's first Grand Slam singles title with a first career Grand Slam singles title of her own.

2023 NFL Picks, Wild Card

It's been quite a busy week in the NFL...and that was just the coaching changes!  The most I've heard anyone talk about the playoffs was the outrage directed at the NFL and NBC for the Dolphins-Chiefs game only being available on Peacock...because they paid $110 million for it!  I'm very curious to see if this becomes a regular thing, or if the backlash will result in them thinking twice about making a playoff game exclusive to streaming again moving forward.

As for the games themselves, there are plenty of storylines, particularly with reunions.  Tyreek Hill returns to Miami, Mike McCarthy takes on his old team, and the quarterbacks who were traded for each other--Matthew Stafford and Jared Goff--face off in the Lions' first home playoff game in 30 years.  It'll be 10 degrees in Kansas City and a blizzard in Buffalo.  And the Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers, who were both supposed to have a "down" year this season each ended up in the playoffs anyway!  So, basically, it was business as usual in Pittsburgh and Green Bay.

Browns (11-6) at Texans (10-7): Cleveland-There was a chance that we'd get all four teams that have never reached the Super Bowl all make the playoffs in the same season for the first time.  The Jaguars decided to piss away their spot, though, so instead it's three out of four, including both of these teams.  And very few, if any, people thought we'd see either one in the playoffs.  Well, not only are they both here, one's guaranteed to win a playoff game.

The Browns are making just their third playoff appearance since reentering the league in 1999, and it's even more remarkable when you consider their current starting quarterback, Joe Flacco, wasn't even playing football in November.  Texans rookie QB C.J. Stroud, meanwhile, proved he was up for the moment last week in their win-and-in victory over Indianapolis.  Playing at home certainly works to his advantage, but it also frees up Myles Garrett and the rest of that outstanding Cleveland defense.  That defense is what I think will make the difference, as the Browns grab the road win.

Dolphins (11-6) at Chiefs (11-6): Kansas City-After crushing Washington in Week 13, the Dolphins had a three-game lead in the AFC East with five to play.  They proceeded to lose three of their last five, including last week in the division championship game against Buffalo.  So, instead of going into the playoffs as the AFC East champions, they enter as a wild card team.  And, frankly, no team (except for maybe Dallas) needed to win their division more than the Dolphins.  Because instead of playing two games at home in Miami, they have to go on the road to frigid Kansas City.

This hasn't been a typical Chiefs season by any stretch of the imagination.  However, despite their struggles, they still won the AFC West for the ninth straight year.  Let's not forget, too, that they're the defending champs.  Their offense hasn't played to its usual form, but their defense has been outstanding.  That defense will be a key against a Dolphins team that only beat one team with a winning record all season (Dallas).  Combine that with the weather and this may not be pretty.

Steelers (10-7) at Bills (11-6): Buffalo-Entering December, the Bills were 6-6 and the No. 10 seed in the AFC.  They ended up as the No. 2 and are the hottest team in the league entering the playoffs.  If they'd ended up as a wild card, they would've been that team nobody wanted to face.  They're still that team, but now they're guaranteed at least two games at home, which makes them even more dangerous.  THIS is the team that was a popular preseason Super Bowl pick.

Pittsburgh was also the No. 10 seed in the AFC at one point this season.  For them, it was even later.  Week 15.  The Steelers finished the season with three straight wins, including two on the road, to snag the final wild card spot.  To say they're a surprise playoff team would be an understatement.  Because their offense was anemic most of the season.  Yet their defense has stepped up.  Last week, they played a disgusting game in the rain in Balitmore and won.  Now they're looking at a snowstorm.  One of the hottest teams in the NFL is going home.  That'll be Pittsburgh.  The Bills advance.

Packers (9-8) at Cowboys (12-5): Dallas-While San Francisco is a pretty clear favorite in the NFC, do not count out the Dallas Cowboys.  Especially since they'll get to play two games at Jerry's World and avoid the 49ers (who've knocked them out of the playoffs in each of the last two years) until the NFC Championship Game.  That was just as important, and why getting the 2-seed as opposed to the 5 made such a difference.  Now they have a chance to really make a statement against a Packers team that went from 2-5 in October to the playoffs in January.

Green Bay was 6-8 and trailed three teams for the last wild card spot with three games left.  The Packers finished with three wins and had the tiebreaker over both the Saints and Seahawks, putting them back in the playoffs in Jordan Love's first season as the starting quarterback.  This year's playoff appearance will obviously give them a ton of confidence heading into next season.  As for their chances against Dallas, I don't want to say they're nonexistent.  These are the Cowboys we're talking about here, and they've found some weird ways to lose playoff games in recent years.  But Dallas is also a better team than Green Bay.

Rams (10-7) at Lions (12-5): Detroit-Ford Field hosts a playoff game for just the second time, and the first involving the home team!  The Lions are one of the feel-good stories of the NFL this season.  Can they keep it going by earning their first playoff win since the 1991 season?  They're taking on a Rams team that followed up winning Super Bowl LVI by going 5-12 last season.  It looked like this season might be a repeat after they started 3-6, but, like the Rams and Steelers, they played their best football down the stretch, going 7-3 in the second half to earn the second wild card.

I think this might end up being the most entertaining game of Wild Card Weekend.  It certainly feels like it'll be the closest.  The focus is obviously on Stafford and Goff, who'll forever be linked because of that trade, but it's their All-Pro receivers, Puka Nacua and Amon-Ra St. Brown, who'll be the difference.  One of them seems poised to shine in his first career playoff game.  The one who does will likely be the one who leads his team to victory.  Look for that to be St. Brown.  Detroit's waited 30 years for this opportunity.  They won't blow it.

Eagles (11-6) at Buccaneers (9-8): Tampa Bay-Let's once again go back to the beginning of December.  The Eagles were 10-1 and had a two-game cushion for the 1-seed in the NFC.  Then they played the 49ers and it was all downhill from there.  They ended the season 1-5 and slipped to the 5-seed.  For most of the season, I thought whoever ended up with the 5 between Philadelphia and Dallas didn't really matter since they'll likely roll the NFC South champion, but now I'm not so sure.  Because the Eagles are not the same team they were earlier in the season.  Not by a long shot.

Tampa Bay, meanwhile, deserves a ton of credit.  Nobody was sure what to make of the Bucs in their first season post-Brady.  What they got was a team that won its third straight division title and finished with a better record than last season.  After losing at home to New Orleans with a chance to clinch the division in Week 17, they went into Carolina last week and took care of business, shutting out the Panthers 9-0.  Against the Eagles, they'll actually need to score.  But if their defense can do what the Cardinals and Giants did to the Eagles, I can see Tampa pulling the upset.  If nothing else, this should be a better game than their Monday night wild card experience a year ago, when the Cowboys absolutely took it to them.

Last Week: 7-9
Overall: 168-104 

All-Time Great Coaching Dynasties

Well, that sure was an eventful 48 hours, huh?  In the span of two days, three longtime football coaches left their positions.  First, it was the Seahawks moving on from Pete Carroll after 14 years.  Then, Nick Saban announced his retirement after 17 years at Alabama.  And finally, Bill Belichick's 24-year tenure with the Patriots came to an end when he and owner Robert Kraft mutually agreed to move on. 

Saban's time at Alabama and Belichick's with the Patriots will certainly go down as two of the most dominant stretches ever by a coach.  Saban led Alabama to six National Championships, three other appearances in the National Championship Game, nine SEC titles, and eight College Football Playoff berths in the first 10 years of the CFP's existence.  His official record was 201-29, and they were ranked in the Top 10 every year except for his first season.

What Belichick did in New England, meanwhile, is unmatched.  In 24 seasons, the Patriots went to nine Super Bowls, won six of them, and had a string of 17 division titles in 19 years (they finished second the other two years), including 11 straight from 2009-19.  His 296 regular season wins are the second-most by one coach with one team, trailing only George Halas.  The fact that Belichick did this in the modern NFL, with the salary cap and constant roster turnover that isn't designed for teams to sustain success for more than a few years.  Let alone two decades of dominance!

Yes, a lot of that success was achieved with Tom Brady as his quarterback.  History will probably end up giving Brady more of the credit.  He won a Super Bowl in his first season with Tampa Bay, while the Patriots missed the playoffs in three of Belichick's final four seasons (after Brady left) and haven't won a playoff game since Super Bowl LIII.  That would be entirely unfair to Belichick, though.  The man is a first-ballot Hall of Famer.  They didn't win six Super Bowls just because of their quarterback.

We don't know what's next for either Belichick or Saban.  I'd imagine Saban will stay retired, at least from coaching, and probably transition either into broadcasting or into some sort of advisory or administrative role somewhere.  It wouldn't surprise me if Belichick continues coaching, especially with the number of attractive available jobs (the Falcons, Chargers and Raiders are three that immediately come to mind).  What we do know is that we're unlikely to see dominant runs like this again.  Not this long, at least.  Not in the modern NFL and college football.

But how do these runs compare historically?  Based on their longevity, they're right up there.  Although, keep in mind, in the pre-free agency era, it was much easier for teams to sustain success.  (It's also worth noting that there are far more than 10 coaches who could be on this list.)

10. Phil Jackson: Jackson could be on here for what he did with the Bulls OR what he did with the Lakers.  Since they were consecutive, I'm counting both.  In Chicago, he won six NBA Championships in nine seasons.  Yes, he had Jordan and Pippen.  So what?  After a year off, he went to LA, where he had Shaq and Kobe and won three more titles in his first three seasons.  That's six consecutive championships in seasons when he coached.  Phil added two more titles after Shaq left, giving him 11 in 20 full seasons as an NBA head coach.

9. Pat Summitt: You can't talk about women's college basketball without talking about Pat Summitt and the Tennessee Lady Vols.  She coached Tennessee for 38 years from 1974-2012 and never had a losing season.  The NCAA Tournament began in 1982 and Tennessee not only qualified every year, they never lost before the Sweet 16 during Summitt's tenure.  Tennessee won eight National Championships (including three straight with Chamique Holdsclaw and Tamika Catchings from 1996-98 and back-to-back titles with Candace Parker in 2007-08).  Her teams won nearly 1,100 games and reached 18 Final Fours.

8. Red Auerbach: Auerbach was hired by the Celtics in 1950-51, and Boston lost in the playoffs in each of his first six seasons before winning the NBA Championship in 1956-57.  After losing in the 1958 NBA Finals, the Celtics went on to win eight straight titles before Auerbach retired and moved into the front office following the 1965-66 season.  That's nine titles in 10 years, a run we'll almost certainly never see again.  The eight straight championships looks like it's a pretty safe record, too.

7. Nick Saban: While this might be a little high, I didn't want recency bias come into play the other way (where I ranked Saban lower than he deserved because I didn't want to rank him too high).  I took the era into consideration, too.  College football is vastly different now than even when Saban started at Alabama.  Yet, in the first 10 seasons of a four-team playoff, his team was selected eight times.  That's consistent excellence.

6. Casey Stengel: Much like Red Auerbach, Casey Stengel benefitted from his era.  Which takes absolutely nothing away from what his Yankees teams of the 1950s were able to achieve.  They won a record five straight World Series in his first five seasons with the team (1949-53), and won 10 American League pennants during his 12 years in the Bronx (and in 1954, one of the two times they missed, they finished second despite winning 103 games, which was actually his winningest season!).  The three World Series Stengel's Yankees lost all went seven games, so that easily could've been 10 World Series titles in 12 years instead of seven.

5. Vince Lombardi: His name is on the freakin' Super Bowl trophy!  Those victories in the first two Super Bowls capped a run of five championships in seven years.  Lombardi was hired in 1959 and led the Packers to the 1960 NFL Championship Game, where they lost to the Eagles.  It was the only playoff loss of Lombardi's career.  NFL Championships followed in 1961 and 1962, followed by three straight from 1965-67.  And, of course, the wins over the Chiefs and Raiders in Super Bowls I & II.  Lombardi's regular season winning percentage was .754, and Green Bay was 9-1 in the postseason.

4. John Wooden: Another legendary figure in the history of his sport.  UCLA won 10 National Championships in 12 years from 1964-75, including an unprecedented seven straight from 1967-73.  Kentucky is the only other men's college basketball program with seven National Championships total!  That's not even the most impressive stat about Wooden's UCLA teams.  They won 88 straight games from 1971-74.  That run included two of his four undefeated seasons.  The man was called the "Wizard of Westwood" for a reason!

3. Bill Belichick: It may seem like sacrilege to some to rank Belichick ahead of Lombardi, but I did for two reasons.  First, it's harder to win in the modern NFL.  Second, and more importantly, Belichick did it for 24 years!  The Patriots won three Super Bowls in four years, then three in five seasons a decade later.  They had 21-game winning streak in 2003-04 and an undefeated regular season in 2007.  None of that is supposed to be possible in the NFL.  Let alone expected year after year for two decades.

2. Mike Krzyzewski: Longevity is what gets Coach K the No. 2 spot.  Krzyzewski has fewer championships and more losing seasons than Wooden, but he also led Duke to 35 NCAA Tournament appearances in 36 seasons from 1983-84 to 2018-19 (and it would've been 36 in 37 had the 2020 Tournament not been cancelled).  His 13 Final Fours are more than any other coach, and his five National Championships are second behind Wooden.  Coaching all of those great Duke teams, he compiled more than 1,100 wins.

1. Geno Auriemma: There's only one person who could top this list, and he's still going strong in his 39th season at UConn.  Prior to his arrival in 1985, the program had only one winning season in its history.  They've only had one losing season since, and that was in his first year!  He's set a standard for excellence, winning 11 National titles, including four straight from 2012-13 to 2015-16, and going to a ridiculous 14 consecutive Final Fours, a streak that was snapped last season.  And let's not forget the winning streaks: 70 straight from 2001-03, 90 straight from 2008-10, and an absurd 111 straight from 2014-17.  Three completely different eras, three completely different sets of players, three ridiculously long winning streaks.  That's what sets it apart for me.  Of all the great coaching dynasties, Geno Auriemma's at UConn stands out the most.

Time to Retire Number 5

When Hall of Famer Henrik Lundqvist had his number 30 retired by the Rangers in 2022, he became the 11th player in franchise history to receive the honor.  They only had two retired numbers for a long time (Rod Gilbert's No. 7 & Eddie Giacomin's No. 1) before adding the four most important members of the 1994 Stanley Cup champions and four others from the 1960s and 70s who were long overdue for the honor.  Lundqvist was a no-brainer to join them.

With the franchise's 100th anniversary coming up in 2026, I propose adding a 12th banner to the Garden rafters.  While it might not seem like there's an obvious candidate, I think there's one player who's long been overlooked, but deserves his due.  The Rangers' first-ever captain, Bill Cook.

Cook was the first player the Rangers ever signed, earning him the moniker "The Original Ranger."  Along with his brother, Bun, he joined the team for its inaugural season and was named captain before the first game.  He wore the "C" for 11 years before retiring during the 1936-37 season.

The Cook brothers and Frank Boucher combined to form the "Bread Line," which starred for the team during the Rangers' first nine years of existence.  They were one of the first great scoring lines in NHL history, and all three were eventually inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame.  Bill Cook was the most prolific scorer of the three, and he scored the Rangers' first-ever goal in their inaugural game, a 1-0 win over the Montreal Maroons on Nov. 16, 1926.

He led the league with 33 goals and 37 points during the 1926-27 season, then led the Rangers to the Stanley Cup in 1928.  He had 59 points in 44 games in 1929-30, and scored a career-high 34 goals in 1931-32.  That would stand as the Rangers single-season record until 1958-59.  In 1932-33, Cook was again the NHL's top scorer, finishing with 28 goals and 50 points.  He was 36 years old that season and would remain the oldest NHL scoring champion until 39-year-old Martin St. Louis 80 years later.

In 474 games, all with the Rangers, Cook tallied 229 goals, 138 assists and 367 points.  Those were all franchise records at the time of his retirement, and he's still 11th on the Rangers' all-time list in goals.  Keep in mind that the NHL only played a 48-game season in those days, too.  Everyone ahead of him played in at least 162 more games.  Cook averaged 0.48 goals per game, so his adjusted goals (based on the current 82-game schedule) would be over 400.  Rod Gilbert's franchise record is 406.

There's one category where no adjustment is necessary.  All these years later, his nine career hat tricks are still a franchise record.  Cook also scored 43 career game-winners, which still ranks third in Rangers history (although, Chris Kreider is right behind him at 42, so you'd have to figure he'll likely fall to fourth sometime relatively soon).

That's all just the regular season.  What he did in the playoffs, leading the Rangers to a pair of Stanley Cups and two other appearances in the Final, is just as impressive.  In 46 career playoff games, he scored 13 goals and added 11 assists.  The Bread Line scored every Rangers goal in the 1928 Stanley Cup Final, as the team won its first Cup, then Cook had two game-winners in the 1933 Final.  His overtime power play goal, the first in NHL history, was the Cup clincher for the Rangers' second championship.

They've won a grand total of four Stanley Cups in franchise history.  Cook was the captain on half of those teams.  And they appeared in two other Stanley Cup Finals (1929, 1932).  That's four in his 11 seasons as captain (they also went in 1937, which I'm not counting since he retired midseason).  Since 1937, they've made it to the Stanley Cup Final a grand total of six times.

Not only was he the captain, he was also the best player.  Cook made the All-NHL team four years in a row and was the Hart Trophy runner-up twice.  He led the team in scoring six times and is still regarded as one of the greatest right wings in NHL history.  Bill Cook was the Rangers' first star player, and he was elected to the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1952.

It's also worth noting that he was a career Ranger.  He even came back and coached the team for a year and a half at the tail end of 1951-52 and the entire 1952-53 season.  Until Rod Gilbert came along and earned the "Mr. Ranger" moniker, Bill Cook was the face of the franchise for the better part of its first half-century of existence.  His status was so significant, in fact, that he was invited to symbolically "close" the old Madison Square Garden and "open" the current version in 1968, when he "scored" the first goal at the arena (just as he had in the Rangers' first game at the previous Garden).

Retiring numbers wasn't really a thing back then.  If it was, there's no question that Bill Cook's No. 5 would've been hanging from the Garden rafters long ago.  Maybe even when the current Garden opened.  Instead, the Rangers didn't retire any numbers until 1979, when Rod Gilbert's No. 7 became the first.  It took another 10 years for Eddie Giacomin to become the second.  And it was just those two until Mike Richter in 2004.

Since then, the Rangers have retired the numbers of franchise legends Mark Messier (2006), Brian Leetch (2008), Adam Graves (2009), Harry Howell & Andy Bathgate (a combined ceremony in 2009), Jean Ratelle (2018), Vic Hadfield (2018) and Henrik Lundqvist (2022).  You'd get very little, if any, debate that each of them is deserving.  There's one name on the list of all-time Rangers greats that's missing, though.  Bill Cook.

Even though he passed away in 1986, that doesn't mean Bill Cook can't be recognized with a jersey retirement.  He was the Rangers' first captain, first star player, and he's still among the franchise's all-time leaders 85 years after his retirement.  I can think of no better way to honor his legacy and his place in Rangers history than retiring his No. 5.  I know the perfect date, too.  Nov. 16, 2026, the 100th anniversary of his game-winning goal in the team's first-ever game.

2023 NFL Picks, Week 18

We've reached the end of another NFL season, and I love how chaotic the playoff picture looks!  So many things can happen depending on the results of different games!  The Bills can be the 2-seed, the 6-seed, the 7-seed or out of the playoffs entirely!  The NFC South can potentially end up in a three-way tie!  And it won't be totally settled until the end of the Sunday night game.  Which is exactly how the NFL likes it!

Meanwhile, more teams than usual have their positions locked up and will be sitting starters.  Both No. 1 seeds are already clinched, so it'll be backups galore for the 49ers and Ravens.  Same thing for the Chiefs and Lions, who'll be the No. 3 seeds, and the Browns, who came out of nowhere to earn the AFC's No. 5 seed (and a visit to the AFC South champion next week).  Don't worry.  There's still plenty at stake, too.

Steelers (9-7) at Ravens (13-3): Baltimore-After the last two weeks, I don't think there's much doubt about who's the best team in the NFL.  What the Ravens did against Miami was a message to the entire league and all but locked up the MVP for Lamar Jackson.  He won't play against a Steelers team that, incredibly, still has a (realistic) chance to get in.  Also, how about Mike Tomlin?  He's been the Steelers' coach for 17 years and never had a losing record.  The winning record was locked up last week.  The playoff spot, unfortunately, will not be this week.

Texans (9-7) at Colts (9-7): Indianapolis-Believe it or not, this will be the Texans' first non-1:00 game of the season.  Not just their first primetime game.  Their first game that isn't a 1:00 kickoff.  All 16 of their games this season have been in the early Sunday window.  That's just nuts!  Anyway, their Saturday night tilt in Indianapolis is for a playoff berth, and the winner can also take the division if the Jaguars lose in Tennessee.  Look for that team to be the equally-unexpected Colts.  When these two met in the final game last season, they had six combined wins (and a tie against each other).  One year later, there's a playoff berth at stake.  That's the NFL for you.

Buccaneers (8-8) at Panthers (2-14): Tampa Bay-Tampa Bay had its chance to wrap up the NFC South with one game to go last week and completely blew its shot!  The Bucs simply got outplayed by New Orleans.  Fortunately, they've got one more chance against a Carolina team that has already wrapped up the worst record in the NFL.  And, to add insult to injury, their owner was fined for his behavior last week in Jacksonville.  Tampa Bay couldn't ask for a better opponent in a must-win game.

Browns (11-5) at Bengals (8-8): Cleveland-I honestly don't know what to make of this game.  The Browns are locked into the 5-seed, so they're sitting a number of starters.  Meanwhile, the Bengals have already been eliminated, so how many of their key guys will sit?  Cincinnati obviously wants to finish above .500, while Cleveland wants to make a statement heading into the playoffs.  The Browns defense will make that statement and lock up Kevin Stefanski's Coach of the Year award.

Vikings (7-9) at Lions (11-5): Detroit-When these two met on Christmas Eve in Minnesota, the Vikings still mathematically had a chance at catching the Lions for the division title.  Oh, how times have changed!  A team that once looked like a lock for a wild card at 7-6 is instead all but eliminated heading into Week 18 after losing three straight, two of which were must-win games...at home.  They looked completely disinterested last week, too.  So, why would we expect them to care this week?

Jets (6-10) at Patriots (4-12): New England-Will this be the final game of Bill Belichick's tenure in New England?  That's probably the biggest question heading into their season finale against the Jets.  And, if it is Belichick's last game, the Jets are a fitting opponent.  Because they've absolutely dominated the Jets, winning 15 straight games in the series, the longest active streak against one opponent in the NFL.  That includes a Week 3 game where the Patriots won on a kickoff return at the last second.  The Jets literally CANNOT beat them!

Falcons (7-9) at Saints (8-8): New Orleans-Atlanta is one of the most fascinating teams in the NFL.  The Falcons should've won the NFC South going away, but have some bad losses, which have put them in a position of needing some help from the Panthers to take the division via the three-way tiebreaker.  Except they got their butts kicked in Chicago last week, while the Saints played like a team that actually wants to win the division.  Which is why I think New Orleans will end up being the team rooting for the Carolina win.

Jaguars (9-7) at Titans (5-11): Jacksonville-If you'd told me at midseason, when the Jaguars were 6-2, that Jacksonville would need a Week 18 road win not just to win the division, but to make the playoffs, I wouldn't have believed you.  But here we are and that's the situation at hand.  And they may or may not have Trevor Lawrence available.  Whether he plays or not, it really shouldn't matter.  The Jacksonville defense should do the job, they'll win the division, and they'll host Cleveland next week.

Seahawks (8-8) at Cardinals (4-12): Seattle-Arizona has four wins this season.  Two of them are over Dallas and Philadelphia.  The Seahawks also have a win over the Eagles, but put themselves in a bind with a home loss to Pittsburgh last week.  Now they need a win and a Packers loss to clinch the 7-seed and a visit to the NFC East champion.  They know what they're up against and won't take the Cardinals lightly.  Unfortunately, they can't control the other part, so they might end up out even with the win.

Bears (7-9) at Packers (8-8): Green Bay-It's win and in for the Packers, a remarkable turnaround for a team that was 2-5 at midseason.  And they sure looked like a playoff team on New Year's Eve!  That was an incredible performance where they completely dominated a Vikings team that was also playing for its playoff life, although you never would've known it.  The Packers deserve to be in the playoffs, and they'll get their by beating their rivals, who've had quite a second-half turnaround themselves.  And, they've already locked up the No. 1 pick thanks to Carolina.

Broncos (8-8) at Raiders (7-9): Denver-Even though they were eliminated from playoff contention last week, this is a big game for the Broncos.  To finish above .500 for the first time in seven years, especially after starting 1-5, would be incredibly encouraging and show that Sean Payton's definitely got this team headed in the right direction.  So are the Raiders, who would be smart to drop the "interim" tag from Head Coach Antonio Pierce's title as early as Monday.  

Chiefs (10-6) at Chargers (5-11): Chargers-Kansas City is in a very unusual position.  An irrelevant Week 18 game, and not because they already have the 1-seed locked up.  Instead, they're gearing up for a Wild Card Game next week.  In the past, we've seen the resting playoff team lose in situations like this, so don't be surprised if it happens here.  The Chiefs already lost to both the Broncos and Raiders.  Will the Chargers make it all three division rivals?

Eagles (11-5) at Giants (5-11): Philadelphia-Incredibly, the Eagles have gone 1-4 since starting 10-1 and, after an inexplicable home loss to the Cardinals, are looking at hitting the road in the playoffs.  The only way they can avoid that is beating the Giants and having Dallas lose to Washington.  The first part shouldn't be much of an issue.  They're 4-0 against Giants Head Coach Brian Daboll.  Although, the game on Christmas was much closer than many expected, and the Giants easily could've beaten the Rams last week, too.  This won't be an easy one for Philadelphia.

Rams (9-7) at 49ers (12-4): Rams-For a while, it looked like the Rams might be in a really hairy situation this week.  Everything broke their way last week, though, so they head to San Francisco with a wild card already locked up.  Even better, the 49ers don't need to win, either.  So, what we've got is two playoff teams who'll be doing their best to not give away too much while also keeping everybody healthy.  More 49ers are sitting and the Rams are tuning up for next week.  That's the only reason I'm taking LA.

Cowboys (11-5) at Commanders (4-12): Dallas-Say what you will about how the game ended, the Cowboys got the win they needed on Saturday night, then were gifted an Eagles loss.  Suddenly, the NFC East title and 2-seed are theirs for the taking.  All they need to do is beat Washington, and they'll both get two guaranteed playoff home games (assuming they win the first) and, just as importantly, avoid San Francisco until the NFC Championship Game.  One road win to avoid going on the road.

Bills (10-6) at Dolphins (11-5): Miami-Game 272 has everything you're looking for in a grand finale for the season.  It's winner-take-all for the AFC East, and Buffalo could end up out of the playoffs entirely with a loss.  It's even possible that they'll do this all again next week!  The Bills are certainly playing better football right now, and, outside of the Cowboys, the Dolphins are yet to beat a team that's actually good this season.  And we all know what happened last week in Baltimore!  Miami is a team that needs to be at home in the playoffs almost more than anybody (except for maybe Dallas).  Call me crazy, but I think they get the win and the 2-seed (only to see the Bills win the rematch next week).

Last Week: 13-3
Season: 161-95 

Where Will the 2025 Winter Classic Be?

Normally at some point during the Winter Classic, Gary Bettman announces the site of the next game and the teams playing.  This time, he didn't do that.  He mentioned how the NHL wants to do a best-on-best international tournament next season (more on that later), but nothing about the 2025 Winter Classic.  Which, of course, leads to plenty of speculation about both the location and participating teams.

I have no idea which way the NHL is leaning for the Winter Classic, but I do know who I'd like to see.  The Colorado Avalanche have, amazingly, never played in the Winter Classic.  (Neither have the Lightning for that matter.)  I'm rectifying that in 2025 and having the Avalanche not just play in the Winter Classic.  I'm having them host it.

Now, while they've never played in the Winter Classic, the Avalanche have played in two outdoor games.  They had a Stadium Series game against the Kings at the Air Force Academy a few years ago, and they played the Golden Knights at that spectacular setting on the 18th hole of the Lake Tahoe golf course during the COVID season.  But the Winter Classic is the NHL's marquee regular season event and the Avalanche are the most prominent team to have never played in it, so it seems like a no-brainer to have them host one.

For their opponent, I have a few ideas.  The Chicago Blackhawks are one of the most frequent Winter Classic participants, having played in four of them.  Plus, they now have Conor Bedard, who you know the NHL would love to showcase.  Some Blackhawks fatigue definitely set in, though, which, combined with the fact that the team hasn't been very good for a few years, is why they haven't played in the Winter Classic in a while.  And I don't think they will next year, either.

The St. Louis Blues and Detroit Red Wings could also be possibilities, as well.  The Blues are a division rival, while the Avalanche and Red Wings had an outstanding rivalry in the 90s.  They aren't even in the same conference anymore, though, so that matchup doesn't quite have the same panache had it been played then.  I'm really only including it here because I'd love to see that Alumni Game!

So, if the Blues, Red Wings and Blackhawks are all out, who should the Avalanche play?  The answer is the Dallas Stars.  Colorado won the Stanley Cup in 2022, Dallas made the Western Conference Final last season, and they're both at the top of the Central Division standings (where they figure to also finish), so the matchup makes sense competitively.  It's two good teams from major markets who've never met in a Winter Classic before (they haven't repeated a matchup yet, and I doubt they will anytime soon).

As for where in Denver to play it, Coors Field seems like the obvious answer.  There's a reason Winter Classics have primarily taken place in baseball stadiums.  Baseball's not in season and those stadiums have very little use in the winter, so they're available and the NHL has plenty of time to set up the ice, etc.  Although, while much more challenging, using a football stadium isn't impossible.  And I think using Empower Field at Mile High (the current name of the Broncos' stadium) could actually work.

Only three previous Winter Classics have been held in NFL stadiums--2008 in Buffalo, 2011 at Heinz Field in Pittsburgh, and 2016 in Foxboro.  In 2016, the Patriots played their final two regular season games on the road to accommodate the Winter Classic, with the stadium then immediately being converted back to football in time for the playoffs.  In 2011, meanwhile, New Year's Day was the only time the Steelers even made the stadium available so that it could be ready for the playoffs.

With the extra week in the NFL season now, though, I think playing at Empower Field could actually be doable.  Especially since New Year's Day 2025 is a Wednesday.  That means the Week 17 Sunday games are on December 29, the Week 18 games are on January 4-5, and the playoffs don't start until January 11.  So, the Broncos could play a Thursday night game on December 19 and play on the road in both Weeks 17 & 18, which would give the NHL 10 days to set up the ice and 10 to break it down before a possible Broncos home playoff game (and the only way for that to happen would be Denver winning the AFC West).  While that's a quicker turnaround than usual, it's still plenty of time.

That, to me, is the ideal setting and matchup for the 2025 Winter Classic.  The Avalanche vs. the Stars from Empower Field at Mile High in Denver.  There are probably other options being considered, and I'm sure that even though they haven't said anything publicly, the NHL has already chosen a site and matchup.  They know who'll be playing and where, they're just waiting to announce it, whether that's at the All-Star Game, at the Stadium Series, or some other time.

Or maybe the NHL is holding the 2025 Winter Classic announcement because they want to announce something else first, and they don't want to do that until all of the details are finalized.  What I'm talking about is a best-on-best international tournament, which seems to be something the NHL wants to happen.  And Bettman all but confirmed it's happening during his interview (while also taking some barbs at the NBA about the In-Season Tournament).

What's ironic here, of course, is that the NHL isn't talking about the Olympics or World Cup of Hockey here.  The NHL knows the players want to play in the Olympics, but hasn't let them since 2014 (although, to be fair, an agreement was in place to go to Beijing 2022 before COVID-related schedule changes resulted in the league having to drop out).  And to say the World Cup of Hockey is played "sporadically" would be generous.

As a result, there's a whole generation of young NHL stars who've never represented their country at a senior international tournament.  Players like Auston Matthews, Jack Hughes, Jack Eichel, Matty Beiners, Seth Jones, Adam Fox and Connor Hellebuyck have never worn a Team USA sweater at the senior level.  Connor McDavid, Mathew Barzal and Cale Makar have never represented Canada.  That's all kinds of wrong!

Whether the NHL eventually goes back to the Olympics or not seems like a Games-by-Games scenario.  Either way, the next Winter Olympics aren't until 2026 anyway.  Although, despite their issues with the IOC, they do like the idea of the international tournament.  And it wouldn't make sense to do another World Cup unless and until Russia is able to participate.  The timing of the World Cup isn't great, either.  All three have been played in the summer before the start of the season (in 2004, the World Cup ended up being the last competitive hockey played for the better part of a year since it immediately preceded the season-long lockout).

Those are just two of the factors that the NHL has taken into consideration with what appears to be the creation of its own international tournament, which looks like it will take place for the first time next February (creating a built in break for the 2026 Olympics?).  How many teams and where the games would be played are among the details to be worked out, but you'd have to imagine that, at the very least, the United States, Canada, Sweden and Finland would be involved.  So, I'm curious to see if this tournament will actually happen and what it'll look like.  Especially since Gary Bettman sure gave the impression that the league and the players both want it.

At some point soon, the NHL will make its announcements regarding 2025 (we don't know where the All-Star Game will be, either).  Whether or not the international tournament comes to fruition, we know there will be a Winter Classic.  And I can't think of a better matchup or setting than Avalanche-Stars at the Broncos' Empower Field at Mile High.