Two Host Cities, One Opening Ceremony

We're a little less than a week away from the Opening Ceremony of the Milan Cortina Olympics and a little more than a year and a half removed from the, let's go with, "unique" Opening Ceremony we saw in Paris.  This one promises to be unique in its own way, with venues spread across Northern Italy.  The main ceremony will be in Milan at San Siro, the historic home of both AC Milan and Inter Milan, but the athletes will all be able to participate no matter where they're competing.  It's an adventurous plan that will either work seamlessly and be amazing or be doomed by poor execution.  I'm curious to see which it'll be.

There are a few things about the ceremony that we do know.  The most prominent of which is that there'll be two Olympic cauldrons--one in Milan, one in Cortina.  It stands to reason, then, that since there are two cauldrons, there will be at least two final torchbearers.  My money's on Armin Zoeggler to be one of them.  That's only one interesting aspect of the two-city/two-stadium Opening Ceremony being planned.  With the athletes being so spread out, how will the countries choose their flagbearers?

Since the Tokyo Games, countries have been allowed to have two flagbearers--one man, one woman.  While I expect that to continue in Milan Cortina, how exactly will that work?  Only a handful of sports are being based in Milan, so will it be limited to those ice athletes?  Or will some nations go with two skiers, who'll be based in Cortina?  What if the athletes who are chosen are competing in different places?  I really am fascinated about how it'll all work.

For Team USA, I think there are three realistic options.  They could have the flagbearers both come from the Milan-based sports and walk in together.  Ditto about choosing two flagbearers from Cortina-based sports.  Or, they could have one of each, with one walking in the Milan portion of the Parade of Nations and the other leading the Cortina portion.  Which, obviously, will be very a logistical challenge, but would actually be pretty cool if they can pull it off.

Who ultimately gets chosen could very well depend on which of those options they go with.  I do think it'll be two flagbearers.  There's no reason for it not to be.  And those American flagbearers will come out of a very deep pool of candidates.  Such as...

Nick Baumgartner: Baumgartner was one of the best stories of the Beijing Winter Games.  He was eliminated in the quarterfinals of men's snowboard cross and thought his Olympic career was over.  Then the 40-year-old was selected for the mixed team event and won gold with Lindsey Jacobellis.  Now 44, Baumgartner is back for his fifth Olympics.

Erin Jackson: Jackson originally didn't make the team four years ago, but Brittany Bowe gave up her spot in the 500 meters so that Jackson could take her place.  Jackson went on to win the gold, becoming the first American woman to win speed skating gold in 20 years.  More significantly, she became the first Black American woman to win any Olympic speed skating medal and the first Black woman to win an individual Olympic gold in any sport.

Nick Goepper: In 2022, Goepper won silver in slopestyle for the second straight Olympics.  He also has an Olympic bronze in the event from Sochi.  On his way home from Beijing, he decided he was done.  He didn't want to ski anymore and told his sponsors he was retiring.  Since then, he's regained his passion for the sport and switched events.  Goepper comes into Milan Cortina as one of the favorites in the halfpipe.

Hilary Knight: Women's hockey captain Hilary Knight will be competing in her fifth and final Olympics.  Team USA's first game is on Thursday and their second is on Saturday, so it's probably unlikely that Knight participates in the Opening Ceremony.  But it'd still be such a tremendous honor for a woman who's meant so much to her sport and is looking for a fifth Olympic medal.

Campbell Wright: Biathlon is the one winter sport in which the U.S. has never won a medal (not counting ski mountaineering, which makes its debut in Milan Cortina).  Campbell Wright can change that.  He won two medals at the World Championships last year and was on the podium at the last pre-Olympic World Cup stop.  I'll admit that his carrying the flag in the Opening Ceremony is unlikely.  If he does medal, though, carrying it in the Closing Ceremony could be a very realistic possibility.

Kaillie Humphries: The 40-year-old Humphries began her Olympic career in Italy 20 years ago, when she was an alternate on the Canadian team.  She went on to win three medals for our neighbors to the north (two gold, one bronze) at the next three Winter Games before switching allegiances to the United States just before the 2022 Olympics...where she won gold for the U.S. in the first-ever women's monobob event.  These Olympics will be her first as a mother.

Ryan Cochran-Siegle: As decorated as the U.S. women's alpine skiing team has been an is expected to be again, the only American alpine medal in Beijing came in the men's Super G.  It was won by Ryan Cochran-Siegle, whose mother was an Olympic champion in the slalom 50 years earlier.  The women's team may generate the headlines with superstars Mikaela Shiffrin and Lindsey Vonn, but it's the 33-year-old Cochran-Siegle, now a three-time Olympian, who's the veteran leader of the men's squad.

Jessie Diggins: She's the face of her sport and the greatest American cross country skier in history.  Diggins was the American flagbearer at the 2018 Closing Ceremony, then won two individual medals in 2022.  She competes on Saturday morning, so the chances of her actually marching in the Opening Ceremony on Friday night are slim to none.  So, even if she were selected, she'd likely decline the honor.  It's an honor she'd certainly deserve, though.

Any of those athletes would be a fine selection, but I'm not going with any of them.  No, my choice for the American flagbearers is the married ice dancers Madison Chock & Evan Bates.  This will be the fourth Olympics for Chock & Bates, who'll likely be the captains of the U.S. figure skating team.  They won team event gold in 2022, are three-time defending World Champions, and are favored to take home two golds in Milan.  They'll actually be competing on the morning of the Opening Ceremony, too, in the opening stage of the team event.  So, because of that, I can see them not marching.  If they do march, however, they should be holding the Stars & Stripes as they lead Team USA into San Siro.

A Hall of Fame Second Look

It was shocking to find out that Bill Belichick wasn't selected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  Most people had pretty much just assumed that was a given, but clearly at least 11 of the voters in the room didn't agree.  That'll certainly have an impact on my Pro Football Hall of Fame "ballot," which I'll post next week.  Because I'm one of those people who took it for granted that Belichick would get in.

Today, though, I'm gonna talk about some of the players who've been overlooked for another Hall of Fame...the Baseball Hall of Fame.  During my snow day, I watched the announcement of this year's class (congratulations to Carlos Beltran and Andruw Jones), as well as the show that preceded it.  On that preshow, they discussed this year's candidates, of course, but also how they compare to some of those players who've been overlooked in the past.  Essentially, the argument was that if the definition of what makes a "Hall of Famer" has evolved and will continue to evolve with the modern game, do those players from the 70s and 80s (and even the 90s) deserve to be looked at thru a different lens?

That, of course, is the entire point of the Eras Committees.  And those Eras Committees generally do evaluate those on the ballot differently than the BBWAA.  That doesn't mean some players haven't still fallen through the cracks, though.  Here are 10 players who will hopefully end up getting that Hall of Fame call after their careers are reevaluated by an Eras Committee.  (Please note this doesn't include anyone who's still eligible for the BBWAA ballot.)

Steve Garvey: Garvey peaked at 42.6 percent of the vote during his 15 years on the BBWAA ballot.  I have no idea why!  The fact that he never garnered the support of at least half the voters boggles my mind!  The dude was a 10-time All*Star, an MVP, a two-time NLCS MVP, played in over 1,200 consecutive games and was a monster in the postseason.  He was the anchor and biggest name on those outstanding Dodgers teams of the 70s.  It seriously makes no sense that he hasn't come close to induction.

Lou Whitaker: A lot of the talk about this year's vote surrounded around the fact that Chase Utley got significantly more support than Jimmy Rollins.  The argument was, basically, how can you separate them?  And it brought to mind another long-time double play tandem--Alan Trammell and Lou Whitaker.  Trammell got voted in by the Eras Committee in 2018, and campaigned for Whitaker in his induction speech.  While I agree Trammell was the better player, Whitaker's definitely deserving of a second look.

Don Mattingly: There's still hope for Don Mattingly, and I do think an Eras Committee will eventually give him the nod.  He certainly checks all the boxes.  Mattingly was the best first baseman in the American League throughout the 80s and he was the face of the most famous franchise in the sport for most of his career.  So, he's definitely got the "fame" part covered.  And, while it shouldn't make a difference in terms of his playing career, the fact that he's been a successful manager, as well, does stand out.

Keith Hernandez: While we're talking about first basemen who played in New York in the 80s, let's go across town.  There's very little debate that Hernandez is the best defensive first baseman in history.  His hitting is underrated, though.  Hernandez won a batting title and two Silver Sluggers and had a .296 career average.  Then there's the leadership.  He won an MVP and was the heart and soul of two World Series-winning teams.  It was trading for Hernandez and Gary Carter, in fact, that set the Mets up for that legendary 1986 season.

Dale Murphy: Another player who'd get a lot more support if he were on the ballot today is Dale Murphy.  He was one of the best damn players in the entire National League playing for some bad Braves teams.  (Meanwhile, the 1997 Braves, who lost in the NLCS, now have six Hall of Fame players, as well as their manager and GM.)  Murphy was a two-time MVP and seven-time All*Star who won both the Gold Glove and Silver Slugger four years in a row.  And, as was mentioned multiple times after two center fielders were voted in, the position is greatly underrepresented in Cooperstown.

Bernie Williams: All six of those 90s Braves are absolutely Hall of Famers.  There's no doubt about that.  You know how many players from the 90s Yankees (who won four Word Series in five years) are in the Hall of Fame?  Two!  Tim Raines and Wade Boggs were there in 1996 and Mike Mussina was there in the early 2000s, but Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera were the only players who were there throughout the dynasty who have plaques in Cooperstown.  Hopefully Andy Pettitte will join them at some point, but Bernie Williams should, too.  He was a good center fielder for a long time and a consistent postseason performer for a team that won four championships (with him hitting in the middle of the lineup).  And, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't winning the entire point?  Yet he fell off the BBWAA ballot after just two years.

Tommy John: Appreciation has certainly grown for Tommy John's longevity.  He pitched for 26 seasons from 1963-89.  Did that longevity contribute to some of his career numbers?  Absolutely.  But, he was an ace during his prime with the Dodgers and won 13 games with the Yankees as a 45-year-old in 1987.  And let's not forget his namesake surgery, which changed baseball and has lengthened countless careers.  That only adds to his Hall of Fame case.

Vida Blue: Vida Blue had well-documented substance abuse problems, which might've been what led to his quick departure from the BBWAA ballot.  But Blue died in 2023, so maybe it's worth taking another look at his career posthumously.  Because he's another one who puts the "Fame" part in Hall of Fame.  There was no bigger name or personality in the early 70s than the ace of the Oakland A's.  He was the AL MVP and Cy Young winner in 1971, then Oakland won three straight championships from 1972-74.  Yes, he had only 209 career wins and his career ERA was 3.27.  So what?  At his peak, he was the best in the game.

Don Newcombe: Taking it way back, the late Don Newcombe never got the Hall of Fame love I feel he deserved.  Newcombe's MLB career was relatively short, but you also have to consider the fact that he played in the Negro Leageus for two years before joining the Dodgers, then missed time serving in the Korean War.  Anyway, Newcombe was the ace of those Brooklyn teams.  He was the 1949 NL Rookie of the Year, then won the NL MVP, as well as the first-ever Cy Young Award (which was one award that went to the best pitcher across both leagues at the time) in 1956.

Bob Meusel: I've made the case for Bob Meusel before, and I will again here.  Meusel played for the "Murderers' Row" Yankees in the 1920s, where he was obviously overshadowed by Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig.  Those teams also featured other Hall of Famers Tony Lazzeri, Bill Dickey and Earle Combs in the lineup, but Meusel held his own.  He was a career .309 hitter, had the fourth-most RBIs in the American League during the 1920s and won the AL home run in 1925.

Are all 10 of the players Hall of Famers?  I don't know.  Will some of them eventually get in?  Hopefully.  My point is that their case should be heard.  And giving their careers another look could very well end up with a deserved plaque in Cooperstown.

Next Season's Opener

The Rams actually did the NFL a big favor by losing the NFC Championship Game.  They're scheduled to open next season in Australia, but it's also a longstanding NFL tradition that the Super Bowl champion plays in the season-opening Thursday night game.  While it would've been interesting to see how they figured it out had the Rams won the Super Bowl (just playing the Australia game on Thursday night here/Friday afternoon there?), they no longer have to worry about it.  Instead, either the Seahawks or Patriots will get the honor of opening at home on Thursday night.

Of course, the Rams have been eliminated as a potential opponent for the Seahawks should they win.  Which, frankly, isn't as big a deal.  Sure, a rematch of the NFC Championship Game (which is also a rivalry game) would've been a great option.  But it wasn't the only one available to Seattle.  In fact, with the Rams out of the equation, there are still five worthwhile choices should the Seahawks earn the honor...

Patriots: Let's start with the most obvious.  The NFC has the extra home game next season, and the AFC East is the NFC West's 17th opponent.  So, we'll have a Super Bowl rematch in Seattle.  It would be totally understandable if the NFL wants to hold this one off until later in the year (perhaps as a standalone doubleheader game in the 4:25 window at some point), but I can also see them having it open the season.  Although, they can only play it in Week 1 if the Seahawks win, so it'll be Option B if the Patriots win.

Chiefs: I know, I know.  But there's no denying that the Chiefs will still be a draw and will still be prominently featured on national broadcasts next season.  Even if Kelce retires, this would still presumably be Mahomes' grand return, and you know Cris Collinsworth would like that.  I don't think this one is likely, but I don't think it's completely inconceivable either.

Bears: It wouldn't surprise me at all if they went with this one.  Had overtime gone the Bears' way, this would've been an NFC Championship Game rematch.  And the NFL loves putting the Bears in primetime.  So, this seems like a very realistic possibility.  Unless they want to give it to FOX as the national game on one of their doubleheader weekends.

Cowboys: Dallas was Philadelphia's opponent in this year's Thursday night opener.  Would they really have it be the Cowboys two years in a row?  While it's probably not likely, it certainly seems possible.  Yes, a lot of people hate the Cowboys.  But they're also a TV draw whenever they're on.  That's why they always max out on their primetime appearances no matter how good they were the previous season.  Still, I think the only way the same team gets to play in the opener two years in a row would be to win back-to-back Super Bowls, which the Cowboys, of course, haven't done since the early 90s.

49ers: If they wanted to go with a division game and the Rams are out, that leaves San Francisco.  Of course, there's also the possibility that they're considering the 49ers for the Rams' opponent in Australia, which would eliminate this option.  (The Seahawks also want in on the Australia game, so could the NFC Championship Game rematch be headed Down Under if New England wins the Super Bowl?)  Although, 49ers at Seahawks was also a Week 1 game this season, so do you really want to go there two years in a row?  Especially when this is an easy one to make a Thursday night game later in the season?

For New England, there aren't as many options.  The Patriots play one fewer home game than the Seahawks, and the schedule rotation has the AFC East playing the AFC West and NFC North.  Which is fine until you look at the home/road split and see that the Patriots' more attractive matchups are mostly on the road.  Still, there are four that I can see...

Broncos: A rematch of the AFC Championship Game could certainly work.  I'm not sure how much Denver will end up being featured in primetime games next season, but you know there will be at least a few.  And it wouldn't surprise me if they're frontloaded.  Either way, you'd have to think this one is headed for national TV no matter what.  So why not on Thursday night in Week 1?

Bills: Buffalo's opening a new stadium, so it would make sense for the Bills to get a home primetime window in Week 1.  That would mean either Sunday or Monday night.  Which would, theoretically, remove Week 1 at New England as a possibility.  Although, they could also have the Bills visit the Patriots in Week 1 and still open the new stadium on Monday night in Week 2.

Steelers: This one really depends on if Aaron Rodgers comes back next season or not.  Pittsburgh's still an attractive team for primetime without him.  Attractive enough for the standalone season opener?  Questionable.  With Rodgers, I can absolutely see it.  Without him, I doubt it.

Packers: Finally, there's Green Bay.  This is, admittedly, a bit of an off-the-wall suggestion.  And it's probably as likely as Seattle-Dallas would be.  I still think it'll be considered, though, even it seems like a stretch that it'll be ultimately chosen.  The Packers are like the Bears in that the NFL likes to feature them in national games a lot, sometimes against pretty random opponents.  New England would definitely qualify as a random opponent.  The Packers and Patriots don't play each other very often.

They obviously need to actually play the Super Bowl first.  But you know the NFL's schedule-makers are already looking at the possibilities and look at all of their options for which game would be the best one to feature on September 10.  You know NBC will have input, too.  And things could certainly change based on what happens during the offseason, which could make certain teams either more or less appealing.

Either way, I think there's a good chance we'll see the Patriots on that opening Thursday night next season.  If the Seahawks win, I can certainly see them going with the Super Bowl rematch.  Especially since both games will be on NBC.  If New England wins, meanwhile, I'll say they host the Broncos after unveiling their first post-Bradicheck Super Bowl banner.

NFL Picks, Conference Championships

We're down to four possible Super Bowl matchups, three of which have happened before.  The only one that hasn't is Rams-Broncos, which, if we're being honest, is probably the most unlikely of the four.  That's not to say it won't be a Rams-Broncos Super Bowl.  It would just be a surprise.  Meanwhile, if we get Rams-Patriots, it would be the third time, tying Cowboys-Steelers as the most frequent Super Bowl matchup.

Those two Rams-Patriots Super Bowls were both significant.  They were the first and last of the six wins during the Bradicheck Era.  One was incredibly exciting and was decided on a last-second field goal.  The other was incredibly boring, the lowest-scoring Super Bowl in history, and the Rams became just the second team ever not to score a touchdown.

Super Bowl LIII also started a crazy run that has a chance to continue this year.  If the Rams win, this will be the eighth consecutive Super Bowl to feature either them or the Chiefs...yet they've never played each other!  Kansas City went to five out of six, with the Rams going the year before, the year in between and, potentially, the year after.  They're doing their own little Brady-Manning alternating thing.

Seattle faced both Manning and Brady back-to-back, so it's funny that if they go back, they'll get either the Broncos or Patriots again.  That Broncos-Seahawks Super Bowl at MetLife Stadium was not a good game by any stretch!  It was a 43-8 blowout!  Instead of going back-to-back, they decided to throw on 1st-and-goal instead of handing off to Marshawn Lynch, allowing the Patriots to make the game-sealing interception.  That, of course, was 11 years ago.   But do you think anyone in Seattle has forgotten it?

Two other fun facts before I move on to talking about the actual games, one in each conference.  For Patriots-Broncos, it's this, which really is fascinating: Including this season, they've made 20 Super Bowl appearances.  They've literally represented the AFC in 1/3 of all Super Bowls!  (And they're actually tied for the most Super Bowl losses with five apiece.)  And they made a combined one appearance between Super Bowls I-XIX.  So, in the last 41 years, they've been the AFC representative in nearly half of all Super Bowls!

In the NFC, it's how this is the worst-case scenario NFC Championship Game for 49ers fans.  The two teams they hate the most are the Rams and the Seahawks (well, I guess they hate the Cowboys, too).  One of them is guaranteed to play in the Super Bowl on San Francisco's home field.  And one of them is guaranteed to continue a trend where eight of the last 14 NFC champions have come out of the NFC West (with the Eagles accounting for three of the other six).

Patriots (16-3) at Broncos (15-3): New England-Denver doesn't have a quarterback.  Unfortunately, that will be the storyline that dominates the AFC Championship Game. Maybe Jarrett Stidham can pull a Jeff Hostetler and lead Denver to the title, but Bo Nix's injury can't be overlooked.  The Broncos are a completely different team without him, which is why it'll be an uphill battle.

For the Broncos to win, they'll need to rely on that outstanding defense.  They came up with the big plays against the Bills (especially on the catch/interception in overtime that was correctly ruled an interception).  Buffalo also scored 30 points, though, so the offense will need to keep up with Drake Maye and Co.  And I'm not entirely sure they'll be able to do that with Stidham instead of Nix.  

Not enough people are talking about the New England defense, either.  Maye and the offense get all the credit, but that defense has been lockdown all postseason.  They've allowed a grand total of one touchdown in two playoff games.  Against Justin Herbert and C.J. Stroud.  This is a Broncos offense without its starting quarterback.  So, you'd have to figure Denver will have just as much trouble scoring against the Patriots as the Chargers and Texans did.  Which is why New England goes into this game as the favorite.

The Broncos are at home and has never lost an AFC Championship in Denver.  They're also undefeated in AFC Championship Games against the Patriots.  Sadly, both of those streaks may come to an end.  If Bo Nix was playing, it'd be a completely different story, although New England might've been favored anyway.  Without him, the Broncos' chances aren't great.  Which is why Mike Vrabel takes the Patriots to their first post-Bradicheck Super Bowl.

Rams (14-5) at Seahawks (15-3): Rams-These two were responsible for two of the best games all season.  In the second one, on a fateful Thursday night, Mike MacDonald decided to go for two in overtime, completely flipping not just the division, but the entire NFC playoff picture.  That decision paved the way for the Seahawks to get the No. 1 seed and, more importantly, home field advantage in the NFC Championship Game.

And let's not forget about that Seattle defense.  In the two games against San Francisco, they allowed a grand total of nine points.  The 49ers never had a chance last week.  That's because the Seahawks never gave them one.  So, there's no reason to think they'll deviate from their recipe for success.  Especially when you consider the fact that the offense clicked just as much as the defense last week.  And wouldn't it be something to see Sam Darnold start a Super Bowl?!

Still, I've been saying for most of the season that I think the Rams are the best team.  Nothing that's happened in the playoffs has done anything to change that opinion.  As a wild card, they had to go on the road twice.  They won both.  In very different ways.  Now they go on the road again, but to play a very familiar opponent who they've already beaten this season.  The Seahawks haven't lost since then, but they know they've got a fight on their hands.

Whoever wins this game is gonna earn it and will likely be the favorites in the Super Bowl.  I keep coming back to the idea that the Rams are the best team, though.  Ultimately, that'll be what makes the difference.  Of the six wild card teams, they were the only one capable of winning three road games to get to the Super Bowl.  Two down.  One to go.

Last Week: 4-0
Playoffs: 7-3
Overall: 178-103-1

No Game, But Still All*Stars

For the second year in a row, there's no NHL All*Star Game this season.  There was supposed to be.  It was originally scheduled for UBS Arena as the final game before the players left for Milan.  Then they turned it into an Olympic send-off event.  Then they cancelled it entirely and gave UBS Arena the 2027 All*Star Game instead (assuming there is one).

Last year, of course, the All*Star Game was replaced by the Four Nations Face-Off, which everyone agreed was better than an All*Star Game anyway.  That was just the appetizer for the NHL's return to the Olympics, where it won't just be four nations, it'll be 12!  And every NHL team will be represented by at least one player at the Olympics, too (and every country except for Italy will have at least one NHL player on its roster).

I get why the NHL ultimately decided against playing an All*Star Game this season, and I admit it would've been weird to have both the All*Star Game and the Olympics in the same year.  That hasn't happened since 2002 (the original plan for 2022 was the same as this year, they'd play in the All*Star Game, then leave for the Olympics from there).  So, the All*Star Game not being played in an Olympic year is not a problem at all.

Still, though, this means we're going two consecutive years without a formal All*Star Game.  And, assuming the World Cup of Hockey returns in 2028 as planned, it seems like it'll only be an every-other-year thing moving forward, with the international tournament (either the Olympics or World Cup) replacing the All*Star Game in even years.  Which is kind of unfortunate for other reasons.

By the NHL not having an All*Star Game in either of the last two seasons (and Russia being ineligible for international play), they haven't been able to properly recognize the league's all-time leading goal scorer on such a stage.  Alex Ovechkin hasn't played in an All*Star Game since 2023.  Assuming this is his last season, as many suspect, that will also be his last All*Star Game.

Ovechkin's not the only one.  There are some players whose only All*Star-caliber seasons came in years when there was no All*Star Game.  Sure, that's a combination of unfortunate timing and bad luck.  But it'll happen more as the All*Star Game continues to be played infrequently.  (For the quality of play and growth of the game perspective, replacing it with international play, which will be better anyway, makes complete sense.  I'm not suggesting they should have the All*Star Game instead of the international events in those years.  I'm just saying it sucks for those players.)

Anyway, where am I going with all this?  Well, just because there's no All*Star Game, that doesn't mean I can't select All*Stars.  So, that's exactly what I'm doing.  And, since the planned date is about two weeks away, roster announcements would've been right around now.  Which means now's as good a time as any to name my selections.

At the last NHL All*Star Game in 2024, fans chose one player from each division to serve as captains, but they used that stupid "pick your own teams" format and had the All*Star Draft as part of the Skills Competition.  As you can tell, I hate that format.  So, I'm not doing that.  Instead, I'm going back to the previous format of four division-based teams.  I'm keeping the fan-selected captains, but that's it.

Those four captains are Auston Matthews (Atlantic), Alex Ovechkin (Metropolitan), Nathan MacKinnon (Central) and Connor McDavid (Pacific).  Another selection criterion to keep in mind are that each division has an 11-member team consisting of two goalies, three defensemen and six forwards.  The complete lack of defensemen in recent All*Star Games is beyond bothersome, so I'm doing something about that.  Also, every team must be represented.  So, with 44 players and 32 teams, only a handful have multiple All*Stars.

That every team thing actually briefly tripped me up.  I had Rasmus Andersson as my Flame, but he was traded to Vegas, so I had to choose another Calgary player and ended up replacing Andersson with another defenseman since my replacement Flame was a forward.  And, as usual, some deserving players got left off because they already had a teammate going and I had to have somebody from every team.  Still, though, I think these rosters that I came up with are pretty good...

ATLANTIC
G: Jeremy Swayman (BOS), Andrei Vasilevskiy (TB)
D: Moritz Seider (DET), Lane Hutson (MTL), Jake Sanderson (OTT)
F: *Auston Matthews (TOR, captain), David Pastrnak (BOS), Tage Thompson (BUF), Alex DeBrincat (DET), Sam Reinhart (FLA), Nikita Kucherov (TB)

METROPOLITAN
G: Ilya Sorokin (NYI), Logan Thompson (WSH)
D: Zach Werenski (CBJ), Matthew Schaefer (NYI), Jacob Chychrun (WSH)
F: *Alex Ovechkin (WSH, captain), Sebastian Aho (CAR), Trevor Zegras (PHI), Sidney Crosby (PIT), Nico Hischier (NJ), Artemi Panarin (NYR)

CENTRAL
G: Scott Wedgewood (COL), Karel Vejmelka (UTA)
D: Cale Makar (COL), Justin Faulk (STL), Josh Marino (UTA)
F: *Nathan MacKinnon (COL, captain), Conor Bedard (CHI), Mikko Rantanen (DAL), Kirill Kaprizov (MIN), Ryan O'Reilly (NSH), Mark Scheifele (WPG)

PACIFIC
G: Darcy Kuemper (LA), Akira Schmid (VGK)
D: Evan Bouchard (EDM), Filip Hronek (VAN), Shea Theodore (VGK)
F: *Connor McDavid (EDM, captain), Leo Carlsson (ANA), Mikael Backlund (CGY), Leon Draisaitl (EDM), Macklin Celebrini (SJ), Jordan Eberle (SEA)

Baseball Hall Call, 2026

We've been spoiled with the Baseball Hall of Fame ballot over the past few years.  After nobody was elected period in 2021, there have been five first-ballot inductees in the past four elections.  This year, we don't have an Ichiro.  There may not be a first-ballot lock next year, either.  Then we get to Albert Pujols in 2028 and Miguel Cabrera in 2029.  Fortunately, the Eras Committee voted in Jeff Kent, so there will be an induction ceremony this year.  But who will the writers elect to join him on stage in Cooperstown?

All signs are pointing towards Carlos Beltran getting in.  Since he played for a lot of teams, it's really more of a question which hat will be on his plaque.  (My money's on Mets.)  He almost got in last year and is the clear headliner on the 2026 ballot.  Beltran's over 89 percent on the Hall of Fame tracker, so his finishing over the required 75 percent seems likely.  Will he be the only one, though?

The other name that's getting a lot of traction is Andruw Jones.  The Hall of Fame tracker has him at 83 percent, so he's not quite the lock that Beltran seems to be.  In fact, I think he will stay above the 75 percent threshold and also receive the call to give us a three-member Hall of Fame class.  If he doesn't get in, he'll be close (and the likely headliner next year, which would be his final time on the ballot).

What I'm curious to see is how everybody else falls.  Without the sure-fire first-ballot guy and with the Steroid Era players cycling off the ballot, that theoretically leaves more votes out there for everyone else.  How close will players like Andy Pettitte and Chase Utley and Felix Hernandez get?  What about David Wright and Dustin Pedroia, the one-team guys whose careers were derailed by injuries?  Will Cole Hamels be the only new addition who survives to a second year on the ballot?

As usual, I'm using this space to reveal the 10 players who I'd include on my ballot if I had one.  Last year, I had all three who were elected, so that gives me three additional spots to go with the seven players I voted for in 2025.  And Cole Hamels is the only new name who makes the cut for me, so I'm voting for two players this year who I didn't have last year.

1. Andy Pettitte, Pitcher (1995-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007-10 Yankees, 2012-13 Yankees): How Andy Pettitte hasn't gotten more Hall of Fame support really boggles my mind.  He's trending upward on the tracker, though, so maybe he's on his way to election.  As he should be.  The whole point is winning.  Andy Pettitte was a winner.  He won five World Series rings, and not just because he was on those Yankees dynasty teams.  I'd argue that the Yankees won those World Series because of him!  Pettitte's postseason dominance, frankly, is enough before you even take his regular season success into consideration.

2. Carlos Beltran, Outfielder (1998-2004 Royals, 2004 Astros, 2005-11 Mets, 2011 Giants, 2012-13 Cardinals, 2014-16 Yankees, 2016 Rangers, 2017 Astros): I rank my votes based on who's a definite "Yes" and who's the last on/first off.  That's the only reason I have Pettitte above Beltran.  Don't get me wrong, though.  I absolutely think Carlos Beltran is a Hall of Famer!  He hit 435 home runs, played Gold Glove defense in center field, and was a productive hitter into his late 30s.  Beltran is one of four players all-time with 1,500 runs scored, 2,700 hits, 400 homers and 300 steals.

3. Andruw Jones, Outfielder (1996-2007 Braves, 2008 Dodgers, 2009 Rangers, 2010 White Sox, 2011-12 Yankees): With Andruw Jones, the question has been whether those years at the end when he was just hanging on diminished his Hall of Fame case.  To which my response is, had he retired after the 2007 season, would his Braves career alone be enough?  And I think it would.  He was the premier defensive center fielder of the late 90s/early 2000s (sorry, Junior), winning 10 consecutive Gold Gloves.  He also hit 20 home runs in all 10 of those seasons, so he wasn't just a one-trick pony.  When/if he gets the call, he'll become the first Hall of Famer from Curacao (or, as Wayne Gretzky calls it, "Cuh-Rock-Oh.")

4. Omar Vizquel, Shortstop (1989-93 Mariners, 1994-2004 Indians, 2005-08 Giants, 2009 Rangers, 2010-11 White Sox, 2012 Blue Jays): Vizquel is one where I really had some trouble.  I really considered dropping him from my list of 10.  But, ultimately, I decided to keep him on, mainly because I've put Vizquel down every year.  The allegations against him did give me pause and are probably why he hasn't gotten as much support as he probably otherwise would have.  But, again, I've either had or considered Omar Vizquel every year he's been eligible, so why stop now?

5. Dustin Pedroia, Second Baseman (2006-19 Red Sox): Pedroia only played nine total games over his final two seasons, so his career arc really only stretches 12 years from 2006-17.  That career arc was a might impressive one, though!  Boston won two World Series in that span (he picked up a third ring in 2018), during which Pedroia won both a Rookie of the Year (2007) and an MVP (2008).  He also won four Gold Gloves and a Silver Slugger.  Not to mention the leadership he provided on good Red Sox teams.

6. Mark Buerhle, Pitcher (2000-11 White Sox, 2012 Marlins, 2013-15 Blue Jays): It doesn't seem likely that we'll see a Mark Buerhle-type starting pitcher again anytime soon.  Sure, Max Scherzer and Justin Verlander are still kicking around, but once they're gone, the horse who'll just go out there every five days and you know you'll get seven innings out of him.  Last season, only three pitchers in the Majors reached 200 innings pitched.  Buerhle threw 200 innings in 14 consecutive years!

7. David Wright, Third Baseman (2004-16, 2018 Mets): Oh, what could have been for the longtime face of the New York Mets?!  Like Pedroia, he's an icon to a fan base after spending his entire career with one team.  Like Pedroia, his career was derailed by injuries.  But when he was healthy and at his peak, boy, was he something else!  The best third baseman in baseball?  No, he was one of the best players in baseball!

8. Chase Utley, Second Baseman (2003-15 Phillies, 2015-18 Dodgers): If I'd had 11 spots last year, the 11th would've gone to Utley.  With three extra places available this year, Utley's on.  Kent's election has brought up the lack of second basemen in Cooperstown, and Utley certainly belongs.  He was the heart and soul of those Phillies teams, and he was consistently one of the best second basemen in the Majors throughout his career.  Utley was a six-time All*Star, four-time Silver Slugger and incredible postseason performer.  He hit seven career World Series home runs (including five in 2009), the most ever by a second baseman.

9. Cole Hamels, Pitcher (2006-15 Phillies, 2015-18 Rangers, 2018-19 Cubs, 2020 Braves): Welcome to the ballot Cole Hamels, who apparently ended his career with the 2020 Braves?!  Anyway, he was the stalwart in that rotation as the Phillies won back-to-back pennants and the 2008 World Series.  He, of course, started the longest game in World Series history and was actually on deck during the two-day rain delay.  My other favorite Cole Hamels fun fact is how, in 2015, he threw a no-hitter in what would end up being his final start for the Phillies before being traded to Texas.

10. Felix Hernandez, Pitcher (2005-19 Mariners): Ultimately, it came down to Jimmy Rollins or Felix Hernandez for the final spot on my ballot.  As weird as it feels to vote for Utley and not Rollins, it also would've felt weird to put all three of the Phillies and leave King Felix off.  Because Felix Hernandez was ahead of his time.  He's the type of starting pitcher we see in baseball now.  Yes, his career was short and he was essentially done once he turned 30.  But when King Felix was in his prime, he wasn't just dominant.  He was the best pitcher in the game.

Before I sign off, I'd be remiss without mentioning my friend Jim Henneman.  Jim was a Hall of Fame voter for years and served on several Eras Committees, as well.  The first time he attended the induction ceremony was in 1966 for Casey Stengel and Ted Williams (not a bad class!).  He passed away last year, so he won't be attending this year's induction ceremony and didn't vote in this year's election.  But his spirit definitely lives on, and I'm dedicating this post (as well as all future Baseball Hall of Fame posts) to Jim's memory.

Australian Open 2026

My favorite thing about this year's Australian Open already happened.  After the US Open moved the mixed doubles tournament to the week before the tournament proper, you knew Australia would come up with something of its own.  What they came up with was a One-Point Tournament, where pros, celebrities, random amateurs, men, women all competed against each other in a single-elimination event.  It was exactly like it sounds.  Each match was one point.  You serve and hit an ace, you win.  You serve and hit an error, you lose.  Anyway, some local dude beat Jannik Sinner and went on to win the whole thing!

Sinner may not have won the One-Point Tournament, but don't expect it to have any impact on his pursuit of a third straight Australian Open title.  It was here in 2024 that he beat Novak Djokovic (badly) in the semifinals and started this new era in men's tennis where he and Carlos Alcaraz have split the last eight Grand Slam titles between them (four apiece).  Sinner has to come into the tournament as the favorite to make it three in a row.  Alcaraz, after all, has never been past the quarterfinals here.  But to say he's motivated would be an understatement.

Alcaraz has already done so much in his career, and he got back to No. 1 after winning the US Open last year.  And he hasn't been shy about how much he wants this title.  It's the only one he's missing for a career Grand Slam.  Alcaraz is still just 22.  If he wins, he'll become the youngest man to complete the career Grand Slam.  He's obviously got plenty of time to win the Australian Open, but he really wants it here.  (Sinner will look to finish off his career Grand Slam at the French Open.)

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it sure looks like we're on a collision course for another Sinner vs. Alcaraz Grand Slam final.  Should it happen, that would make it four Grand Slams in a row where they've met for the title.  And, frankly, I'm not sure I see anybody getting in either of their way.  Well, except for maybe one guy.

We didn't know it at the time, but Sinner's win over Djokovic in the 2024 semifinals really was a changing of the guard.  Novak's still looking for that 25th Grand Slam title, which would leave him alone as the all-time leader.  Simply by playing in the tournament, he'll tie another all-time record.  This will be Djokovic's 81st appearance in a Grand Slam, matching Roger Federer and Feliciano Lopez.  Assuming he's healthy, he'll break that record in Paris.  (He's been to at least the semifinals in 53 of the previous 80, an insane percentage!)

Djokovic can reach two other milestones during the tournament.  A first-round victory would be his 100th at Melbourne Park, making this the third Grand Slam where he'll have 100 wins (which is kinda odd, considering he's a 10-time champion).  He needs three wins to become the first player ever with 400 career Grand Slam match victories.  If those numbers sound insane, it's because they are.  As are his 10 Australian Open titles.

Is Djokovic a favorite to make it 11?  No.  But a run wouldn't surprise anyone.  And, don't forget, he made the semifinals last year, but had to retire after losing the first set to Alexander Zverev.  If he wasn't injured, we very well might've seen a Djokovic vs. Sinner final in 2025.  This year, they'd face each other in the semifinals should they both get there.  Should that happen, you'd have to think it'd be Sinner's match to lose.

Zverev is worth mentioning, too.  He was the finalist last year and blew a two-set lead in the 2024 semifinals.  Zverev has the Olympic gold from Tokyo, but still hasn't gotten over the hump at a Slam.  Could this finally be his time?  Unfortunately, I don't think so.  Not when he'll have to be Alcaraz in the semis and either Sinner or Djokovic in the final.

There's also somebody looking to complete a career Grand Slam on the women's side--Iga Swiatek.  Last year, Swiatek reached the semifinals for the second time in her career, losing a third-set tiebreak to Madison Keys.  As fate would have it, that could be the semifinal matchup again this year.  After that great semifinal they played in 2025, you almost want to see the rematch.  Although, that's assuming Keys gets through the American gauntlet.

Last year, an American woman made the final at all four Grand Slams.  It's actually five in a row going back to Jessica Pegula at the 2024 US Open.  Pegula, Keys and Amanda Anisimova (who's been to the last two Grand Slam finals) are all in the same section of the draw, where they're joined by 2020 Australian Open champion Sofia Kenin.  The good news is it looks good for an American to reach the semifinals from that section of the draw.  The bad news is they'll likely have to take out each other to get there.

The other American woman who made a Grand Slam final last year was Coco Gauff, who won the French Open.  She's the No. 3 seed and on the opposite side of the draw.  Gauff followed up her 2023 US Open title by reaching the semifinals here, so a deep run wouldn't be a surprise at all.  Her second-round match could be the one worth watching, though.  Coco Gauff's big breakthrough was at Wimbledon in 2019, where she reached the fourth round.  In the first round, her first-ever Grand Slam match, the 15-year-old Gauff upset Venus Williams.  If they both win their opening matches here, Coco would play the now 45-year-old Venus in the second round.  A full-circle moment to be sure.

Of course, the one name I'm yet to mention is the best women's tennis player on the planet right now.  Not to mention the best hardcourt player.  That's World No. 1 Aryna Sabalenka, the two-time champion who saw her 20-match Australian Open winning streak snapped by Keys in last year's final.  Sabalenka has been to the last six Grand Slam finals played on hardcourts.  There's no reason to think she won't make it seven.

Sabalenka is probably a bigger favorite than Sinner is.  Especially when you look at her draw and don't really see any names that should challenge her.  Even a potential semifinal matchup against Gauff she should easily handle.  And, if Sabalenka cruises into the final (which wouldn't be a surprise), a third title in four years could easily be on order.  In fact, I think the only one who can prevent that might be Swiatek.

So, yes, I'm being boring and going with the chalk.  But going with the chalk is sometimes the wise bet.  Because Jannik Sinner and Aryna Sabalenka have just been that dominant both on hardcourts and at the Australian Open over the past several years.  Expect that to continue in 2026.

NFL Picks, Divisional Round

A lot was made about the fact that Seahawks-49ers is on Saturday and Rams-Bears is on Sunday, even though the Rams and Bears played on Saturday last week.  I agree that it would've made more sense to put that game on Saturday night and Seattle-San Francisco on Sunday.  My guess is NBC is to blame for why Bears-Rams ended up on Sunday. 

Last week, there was that interesting piece explaining why Bears-Packers was the Prime game and how NBC essentially drew the short straw on Wild Card Weekend.  That same article implied NBC would get first choice this weekend.  So, if they wanted Rams-Bears and were tapped for a Sunday game (FOX usually gets Saturday night), that would explain it.  Does it suck for the 49ers to have a cross country trip AND a short week?  Yes.  But I bet that's why.

Do I know this for sure?  No.  But it does make sense.  Just like how the "times and networks TBA" announcement after the Patriots-Chargers game makes sense in hindsight, too.  If the Steelers had won, New England-Pittsburgh likely would've been on Sunday night (probably on CBS instead of ESPN).  Since the Texans won, that game became less appealing, so Bears-Rams got the late slot on Sunday.  Do I know this for sure?  Also no.  But if the timeslots weren't dependent on the Steelers-Texans result, we almost certainly wouldn't have had to wait until after the Monday night game to find them out.

What's weird, though, is how neither of the Sunday afternoon networks has a game on Sunday afternoon.  CBS has Bills-Broncos on Saturday afternoon and FOX has Seahawks-49ers on Saturday night.  When was the last time there was a Sunday with multiple games that didn't feature any on either CBS or FOX?  Has it ever happened?  It's especially odd because CBS won't have a primetime playoff game at all this season (the AFC Championship Game is first this year).

Anyway, Divisional Playoff weekend is typically the most anticipated weekend on the NFL calendar.  The top eight teams in the league, all two wins from the Super Bowl.  I'm not sure it'll be able to match last weekend, though.  The first four games of Wild Card Weekend, especially, were exceptional.  They were decided by a combined 14 points!  Sure, the last two games weren't close.  But those were two dominant defensive performances by teams that will face each other this weekend.

Before the playoffs started, I thought it was wide open and had absolutely no idea who'll be in the Super Bowl.  What happened on Wild Card Weekend did nothing to change that opinion.  In fact, it might've had the opposite effect.  I can legitimately see all eight teams playing this weekend taking the field in Santa Clara on February 8.  So, if that's the case, this week could very well give last week a run for its money.

Bills (13-5) at Broncos (14-3): Denver-The Bills earned their first road playoff win since the 1992 AFC Championship Game last week.  And they did it because Josh Allen was being Josh Allen.  He essentially willed them to victory.  That playoff experience was on full display.  Now Buffalo is tasked with winning another road playoff game in conditions that would be a problem for any other team and any other quarterback.

When these two met in the Wild Card round last season, it was clear the Bills were the better team.  This time, I'm not so sure.  Buffalo has Josh Allen and hasn't lost a playoff game to an opponent other than Kansas City since 2022.  They obviously don't have to face the Chiefs this year, but they do have to face that Broncos defense.  In Denver.  If the game were in Buffalo, I'd take the Bills.  Since it's in Denver, I'm going with the Broncos.

49ers (13-5) at Seahawks (14-3): Seattle-These two are meeting on a Saturday night for the second time in three weeks.  And the first one directly set up this one.  Had the 49ers won, they would've gotten a week off and been at home.  Instead, they had to travel to Philadelphia and face the defending champions.  They came away with a win, but lost George Kittle, the latest in their long line of injuries.

Can they overcome another injury and take down a rested division rival on the road?  A division rival that completely shut them down two weeks ago.  That Week 18 game could end up proving to make a big difference in this one.  The Seahawks earned the 1-seed with a dominant effort in that game.  They haven't played since.  While this game won't be a carbon copy of that one, it'll be pretty close.  The NFC Championship Game will be in Seattle.

Texans (13-5) at Patriots (15-3): New England-Both of their defenses stole the show in their Wild Card wins.  Neither offense did much.  Which leads you to believe that we'll see a low-scoring struggle.  Points will almost certainly be at a premium, and whichever offense is able to move the ball with any sort of regularity will figure to be in good shape.

Houston has a championship-caliber defense and is the hottest team in football.  The Texans got their first-ever road playoff win last week, and it's a very realistic possibility that they'll be playing in their first-ever AFC Championship Game next week.  Winning on the road two weeks in a row will be a tall order, though.  The Patriots' defense isn't the Steelers' defense.  New England shuts down Houston enough to get the win.

Rams (13-5) at Bears (13-5): Rams-I saw the craziest stat the other day.  This will be Sean McVay's 15th playoff game as Rams coach.  In those 15 games, the Bears will be their 15th different opponent.  All he needs to finish off the entire NFC is the Giants and Commanders.  Of course, he can't make it 16-for-16 with a win since they've already played both Seattle and San Francisco in the postseason.

Heading into the playoffs, I thought the Rams were the best team.  They got a bigger challenge than expected from the Panthers, but managed to pull it out.  The Bears, meanwhile, did their regular thing and had a fourth-quarter comeback.  It wouldn't be a surprise at all to see them do it again.  It also wouldn't surprise me to see the Rams not let them get away with it this time.  I still think they're the best team.  They've already got one road win.  Now they'll add another.

Last Week: 3-3
Overall: 174-103-1

What's Wrong With 162?

Ever since Rob Manfred hinted about potential MLB realignment when they inevitably expand to 32 teams, people have been coming up with their thoughts on what those new divisions should look like.  Even if they don't make any sense and run completely contradictory to what Manfred himself has said.  (I can't tell you how many times I've seen the Mets & Yankees, Cubs & White Sox and Dodgers & Angels in the same division, even though Manfred has made it abundantly clear that the two-team cities will continue to be in opposite leagues.)

I'm not saying MLB can't, won't or shouldn't expand.  And, when it does, realignment into four four-team divisions in each league makes the most sense for practical and logistical reasons.  Don't expect that realignment to be too drastic, though.  Depending on where the expansion teams are, I'm not even sure any teams would switch leagues.

Baseball, perhaps more than any other sport, is bound by its traditions.  Manfred knows this.  That's why, as much as some fans might not like it, any realignment will be minimal.  Because anything more than that would anger the traditionalists just as much, if not more.

One of those traditions is the schedule.  When asked about the possibility of an NBA-style in-season tournament, Manfred poured cold water on the idea.  While not completely ruling it out (probably to appease the reporter who asked the question), he essentially shut it down right then.  Baseball's season structure doesn't really allow for it.  Nor is there any sort of appetite to have an event of this type.  But that, of course, hasn't stopped people from suggesting it.

Another popular suggestion is shortening the season (presumably to accommodate this nonexistent in-season tournament).  The long season has long been one of Major League Baseball's defining characteristics.  After playing 154 games for the first half of the 20th Century, the American League went to a 162-game schedule in 1961 and the National League followed suit a year later.  It's been 162 games ever since.

Apparently, that's too many games for some people.  What I've found is that most of those people aren't baseball fans.  So why do they care how long the season is then?  Because real baseball fans don't think the season is too long at all.  Game 7 of the World Series was on November 1.  It was the most-watched baseball game in 35 years.  Clearly watching baseball in November wasn't an issue for the 35 million viewers.

Most of the suggestions around shortening the season seem to be stuck on the idea that it either starts too early, ends too late, or both.  The "ends too late" crowd clearly seem to think that baseball should be over in late September/early October so that it doesn't overlap with football season.  Because the two seasons overlapping for two months is apparently some sort of problem!  Likewise, the "starts too early" crowd uses the early April weather in certain cities as their excuse.  (That excuse is also used by the other side as their argument for not playing in late October...meanwhile, if your team's playing in late October, it means they've made it deep into the postseason.)

Yes, once upon a time, the World Series ended in early October.  That was a long time ago!  As MLB expanded and added extra rounds of playoffs, the postseason became longer.  Sometimes that will result in the World Series not ending until November.  Which, again, to actual baseball fans, isn't a problem at all.

Meanwhile, the entire baseball season, including the playoffs is only seven months long!  Yes, teams play practically every day for the first six of those months.  But the point remains, baseball season is actually shorter than the NBA and NHL, which follow their six-moth seasons with two months of playoffs!  Yet no one is complaining that those seasons are "too long."  Or is it just the 162 number that's "too many?"

And, while the advocates for a shorter season may think it's not that big a deal, reducing the number of games is nowhere near as easy as it sounds.  Even if they were to say, cut eight games and go from 162 back to 154, good luck on getting either the owners or players (let alone both!) to sign off.  For the owners, that would mean four fewer home games.  That means less revenue.  And that would also mean less money for the players, since the owners wouldn't be bringing in as much.  Can you really see them agreeing to lower salaries?  It would cause even more labor strife than what we're about to see after next season.

There's this, too.  I mentioned Baseball's respect for its traditions and history before.  Single-season baseball records are sacred.  So sacred, in fact, that when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's home run record, it carried an asterisk for 30 years because Maris did it in 162 games instead of 154.  If they were to go back to 154, it would be that much harder to ever challenge an MLB single-season record again.  And baseball's the one sport where everyone knows the single-season records at the top of their heads!

It isn't just individual records, either.  When the Dodgers won the World Series in 2020, it was completely legitimate.  But, because that was the COVID-shortened 60-game season, a lot of people (the Dodgers included) didn't consider it on par with a full-season championship.  It was one of their guiding motivations for the next four years until they finally got that full-season title in 2024.  No one could question it or attach any sort of qualifiers that time.

Reducing the schedule would also interfere with MLB's well-crafted formula.  When they played 154 games, it was because the math worked out (22 games against each of the other seven teams in your league).  The current schedule format was devised in 2023, when teams began playing every other team in the Majors each season.  That was a long time coming, and it came about after certain franchises had been requesting it for years.  Now that you've finally given it to them, good luck taking it back.  Especially since you want them to have fewer home games to begin with.

The current schedule format was set up for a 162-game season.  Slight adjustments will be necessary when they go to 32 teams, but those will be easy to make.  In fact, it would be much easier to do that than to figure out an entirely new formula which may or may not include playing every other team in the Majors.  No matter how you try to do that, the math doesn't work!

Any adjustments to the schedule would also need to be collectively bargained with the MLBPA.  The current CBA calls for 162 games in 186 days.  Excluding the All*Star break, the players get 20 off days during the season.  The CBA also defines the 26 1/2-week period during which those 162 games are played.  If you want to change that, the players would have to agree.  Which is easier said than done.

All of which brings me back to my original point.  Who involved with Baseball actually thinks any of these suggestions are good ideas?  The only people who are looking to "improve" the game don't even care.  So, why does it make a difference how many games teams play or how the divisions are set up then?  As the old adage goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  And the 162-game season ain't broke.  So stop trying to "fix" it.

The Best Available Jobs

Mike Tomlin has resigned after 19 years and 19 consecutive non-losing seasons in Pittsburgh.  Even though his departure was voluntary, his fate was probably sealed when the Steelers got shellacked by the Texans in the wild card game, their seventh straight playoff loss (five of which have come in the wild card round).  Tomlin did win a Super Bowl, but that was 17 years ago.  So, maybe the time was right for a change in Pittsburgh.

The Steelers job is the ninth head coaching vacancy heading into next season.  Barring anything unforeseen, it'll likely be the last.  And, if history is any indication, all nine teams will move fast to hire a new head coach.  I'd imagine that most, if not all of the jobs are either filled by the Super Bowl or on hold only because they want one of the conference champions' coordinators but can't officially hire them until their season's over.

Not all nine of those jobs are created equal, though.  And not all eight coaching hires will be home runs.  Look at the Raiders.  They're looking for a coach for the second straight year after getting rid of Pete Carroll, who didn't lead the turnaround that was expected.  Others you figure will work out swimmingly, like Mike Vrabel with the Patriots or Ben Johnson with the Bears.

Obviously, there are only 32 NFL head coaching jobs.  If you're offered one, you'll take it.  But, if given the option, which would you choose?  Which of the nine available jobs is the best?

9. Cardinals: Winning in Arizona will be tough.  The Cardinals have a lot of holes to fill, and the other three NFC West teams all reached the Divisional Playoffs.  So, the first year or two won't be easy.  Will ownership and the fan base be patient enough to wait it out?  I have a feeling they won't and the Cardinals will be looking for a new head coach again in another year or two.

8. Raiders: Well, the Pete Carroll thing sure didn't work out, huh?  As a result, the Raiders will start over again!  And they'll be doing it in a division with three very good teams.  Plus, whoever they hire will be their fifth head coach since Jon Gruden's resignation midway thru his third season back with the Raiders in 2021.  This is one of the most difficult jobs for any head coach.  In multiple respects.  Whoever gets the Raiders job probably shouldn't plan on being there very long.

7. Titans: I'm sure in hindsight, they're wishing they'd never fired Mike Vrabel.  They've finished 3-14 in each of the two years since they let him go.  Meanwhile, he's probably gonna win Coach of the Year in New England!  Still, there's always opportunity in the AFC South (although, maybe not with the team Houston has built).  Plus, the benefit of being so bad in back-to-back years is that this season they have the No. 2 pick after taking Cam Ward No. 1 last year.

6. Giants: Let's be honest.  This is a tough job, and whoever takes it will have his work cut out for him.  There are definitely some pieces in place, so a successful first season isn't unheard of.  Both Ben McAdoo and Brian Daboll made the playoffs in their first season with the Giants.  Sustained success has been the issue, though.  But still.  It's the Giants.  It's one of the marquee franchises in the NFL.

5. Browns: Kevin Stefanski brought some stability to the Browns and won two Coach of the Year awards in six seasons.  They've got a good foundation, too.  Myles Garrett just set the sack record and will probably be the Defensive Player of the Year.  So, it probably won't take too much for the next Browns coach to be successful.  Of the three available AFC North jobs, it's the third-most desirable.  But compared to some of the other openings, it's far more appealing.

4. Dolphins: Mike McDaniel's firing was perhaps the most surprising of them all.  Especially since the Dolphins waited a few days after the end of the season.  I originally suspected McDaniel was only let go once Harbaugh became available, and I wouldn't be surprised if he lands one of the eight other available head jobs.  Whoever replaces him in Miami will take over a roster with enough talent to contend for a playoff spot next season.

3. Falcons: Arthur Blank clearly got tired of his team's continually failing to meet expectations.  That's why he brought Matt Ryan in and completely restructured the organization.  So, it's obvious that he wants to win.  Which is certainly doable in the NFC South.  He's a good owner and he'll set up his new coach for success, so this should be a very attractive job.  Harbaugh has already said this is one he'll consider, so it wouldn't be a surprise if he ends up in Atlanta.

2. Ravens: John Harbaugh's time in Baltimore had run its course, but the Ravens job is still one of the better ones in the NFL.  The Ravens also have a history of coaches with longevity, with Brian Billick lasting nine years before Harbaugh's 18.  This is probably the team looking for a new head coach in the best position to be successful next season.  After all, a missed field goal on the last play in the final game was the only thing that kept the Ravens out of the playoffs this year.  And that was after a terrible start and key players missing time with injuries.   

1. Steelers: Chuck Noll.  Bill Cowher.  Mike Tomlin.  That's a complete list of the Steelers' head coaches since the merger.  Which was in 1970!  Whoever gets the Pittsburgh job will have job security.  Not to mention patient ownership and a winning culture.  This is easily the most desirable of the available coaching jobs.  Of course, the Steelers also have a passionate fan base who'll expect results, so the pressure will be on whoever gets it.

Of course, the job being desirable doesn't guarantee success.  And a job that may not be that desirable on paper could end up being the perfect fit for both team and coach.  But if past success and organizational history are any indication, those two jobs in the AFC North should be the most coveted of the available coaching positions.

NFL Picks, Wild Card

It was so funny seeing all those "experts" analyze the Wild Card Weekend schedule and why certain games were at certain times.  Yes, the Texans' tongue-in-cheek celebration about not having the Saturday afternoon game was funny, but there was no chance of that happening this season.  In fact, the NFL telegraphed this week's schedule when they scheduled last week's games. 

The Saturday afternoon game is on FOX this season, so it was gonna be an NFC game (which meant it couldn't be the Texans).  And they didn't just put Panthers-Bucs on Saturday afternoon last week because it was a quasi-winner-take-all.  They did it because the winner was gonna host the Saturday afternoon wild card game.  And, since that's the NFC 4-5 game and the Monday night wild card game also has to be a 4-5 game (so that they can set the schedule for the Divisional Playoffs on Sunday night), that meant the Texans and Steelers/Ravens were locked into Monday night.

What was interesting, though, was the article describing why Packers-Bears is on Saturday night.  That was the only real surprise of the Wild Card Weekend schedule, but the explanation did make sense.  Basically, FOX didn't care whether they got Packers-Bears or Eagles-49ers and they had both regular season games.  Sunday Night Football, meanwhile, was essentially a playoff game last week, so NBC wasn't given priority.  As a result, it ended up as the Prime game on Saturday night.

Which, if you think about it, was the only real place it could go.  Thinking ahead to next week, the NFL wants the rest to be as equal as possible.  They'd prefer to have no more than one day's difference.  If they'd put an AFC game in the Saturday night spot, there would be a possibility that you'd have the Saturday winner playing the Monday winner, one on eight days' rest, the other on six days' rest.  The only way to avoid that potential scenario was putting an NFC game on Saturday night.  (The Texans-Steelers winner has to play on Sunday in the Divisional round.)

So, taking all of those things into consideration left us with a pretty straightforward schedule.  Steelers-Texans had to be Monday night, so they were left with Bills-Jaguars and Patriots-Chargers for the CBS early slot and the Sunday night slot.  Talk about an easy call!  Not only is Bills-Jaguars the less appealing game (and, thus, the logical option for the only 1:00 game of the playoffs), the Chargers play on the West Coast, so it just made sense to not have them play at 10 am local time.  There's the whole Herbert vs. Maye on Sunday night thing, too.  I'm sure NBC probably wanted Packers-Bears, but Patriots-Chargers isn't a bad alternative.

When they expanded the playoffs and set it up with the Sunday night wild card game on NBC and the Monday night wild card game on ESPN, it just made sense.  Just extend both networks' regular timeslot an extra week keeps up the continuity of what fans are used to all season.  It was a three-year deal that expires after this season, but ESPN wants to extend it and keep the Monday night wild card game.  Which, again, just makes too much sense.  Especially with ESPN's first Super Bowl coming up next season.

Speaking of the Super Bowl, I have no idea who's gonna be there!  These playoffs are so incredibly wide open in both conferences.  It'll certainly be difficult for all of the AFC teams to have to go thru Denver, but the Broncos are certainly beatable.  Same with the Seahawks.  Especially since they could potentially play a division rival next week (and I still think the Rams are the best team).  But there's also a very real possibility that they both make it and we see a rematch of Super Bowl XLVIII (although, should that happen, hopefully this one's more competitive).

We don't have to worry about the Broncos and Seahawks until next week, though.  They both earned a bye, and they both need it.  Those were tough, physical games last week.  They'll be watching with the rest of us as the other 12 playoff teams duke it out on Wild Card Weekend.

Rams (12-5) at Panthers (8-9): Rams-Carolina backed into the playoffs, but it doesn't matter how you get there as long as you do.  Of course, the sub-.500 record has them as heavy underdogs against a Rams team that they've already beaten in Charlotte this season.  That alone should give the Panthers confidence heading into their first playoff game in eight years.  However, the Rams are still the better team and going on the road shouldn't faze them.  Especially since they're probably the one wild card team most capable of winning three road games enroute to the Super Bowl.

Packers (9-7-1) at Bears (12-5): Chicago-They've played two great ones already this season.  Now it's time for Round 3, the first playoff meeting between the NFL's oldest rivals since the 2010 NFC Championship Game.  The Packers won that game at Soldier Field and went on to win the Super Bowl.  Green Bay is favored in this one, but I'm not entirely sure why.  It was just three weeks ago that the absolutely crazy finish between these two changed the trajectory of the NFC North race.  The Packers went from potentially being the 2-seed to locked into the seven.  And a visit to their archrivals.  The Bears have managed so many fourth-quarter comebacks this season that would it surprise anyone if they have another one?

Bills (12-5) at Jaguars (13-4): Jacksonville-These two have met in the wild card round twice before.  The Jaguars have won both, including their matchup eight years ago.  Buffalo, of course, is the only AFC team with any real recent playoff experience, which has to be an advantage.  Although, it must be weird for the Bills to know they don't have to worry about the Chiefs or the Ravens!  They do need to worry about Jacksonville, though.  I think a lot of people (myself included) have underestimated the Jaguars all year.  This team is good.  They wouldn't have finished with the fourth-best record in the league if they weren't.  And they'll show everyone how good they are by improving to 3-0 all-time against the Bills in the playoffs.

49ers (12-5) at Eagles (11-6): Philadelphia-After going up and down the field at will against the Bears, the 49ers couldn't move the ball at all against the Seahawks.  And it cost them the chance to spend the entire postseason at home.  Which, frankly, they needed (especially the rest that came with the bye).  Especially since now they have to go on the road to meet the defending champions.  Yes, the 49ers have the better record.  And, yes, the Eagles also lost last week (when they had a chance to move up to the 2-seed).  I'm not sure it'll matter.

Chargers (11-6) at Patriots (14-3): New England-On Sunday night, it should be a fun one.  The Chargers come in on a two-game losing streak, but they didn't care at all last week, so that one doesn't really count.  What they have to worry about is their recent playoff history.  Last year, they got blown out in Houston.  Their last playoff appearance before that, they allowed that massive Jaguars comeback and lost.  Can they overcome those playoff demons?  More importantly, can they stop Drake Maye and a Patriots offense that's clicking?  New England enters the postseason on a three-game winning streak during which they've scored 108 points.  They should put up plenty against the Chargers, too.

Texans (12-5) at Steelers (10-7): Pittsburgh-Instead of opening Wild Card Weekend, the Texans will close it.  This is also the first time Houston has ever qualified for the playoffs as a wild card team.  And we've seen how formidable their defense is.  Which is why the Texans are favored.  However, after that crazy finish on Sunday night that got them into the postseason, it would be stupid to count the Steelers out.  In fact, I think Pittsburgh will find a way to get it done and earn its first playoff win since the 2016 season.

Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 171-100-1

Broadcaster or Front Office Guy?

The NFL and its broadcast partners don't want to admit it, but they've got a problem on their hands.  It started when Tom Brady was allowed to stay in his role on FOX's No. 1 broadcast team after becoming a part-owner of the Raiders, an obvious conflict of interest that no one seemed to care about.  Now Troy Aikman is consulting with the Dolphins on their GM search.  The real capper is Matt Ryan, though.  He hopes to run the Falcons' football operations department and still be a panelist on The NFL Today.

Anyone with eyes can see the ginormous conflict of interest that would exist should CBS and/or the NFL allow Ryan to be both an active member of a team's front office and a broadcaster.  Broadcasters are supposed to be neutral and, at times, critical.  How could anyone possibly expect Ryan to be either?  How is he supposed to be objective about anything regarding the Falcons, a team whose success he's directly invested in?  Likewise, would he actually be honest when it comes to rumors surrounding Atlanta's potential personnel decisions?

Then there's the insider information he'd stand to receive.  Or lack thereof.  Seriously, why would anyone from the Saints, Bucs or Panthers tell him anything?  Every team would have their guard up around him, but especially Atlanta's NFC South rivals.  It would change the dynamic of his relationship with all 32 teams (including the Falcons).  Which would directly impact his ability to do his broadcasting job.  Without those relationships, what could he actually bring to a broadcast?

Not to mention the fact that neither of these are part-time jobs.  We're not talking about Michael Strahan doing Good Morning America during the week and FOX NFL Sunday here.  Strahan's able to manage both jobs because (A) they're in the same field, (B) he's still able to do all of his NFL prep work and, most importantly, (C) being on GMA doesn't affect his ability to remain neutral, which is a necessity for a national broadcaster.

Running a team's entire football operations department, meanwhile, is not a part-time gig.  It's a daily, hands-on job where you have intimate knowledge of everything that's going on with the organization.  It isn't hard to envision that job conflicting with his role at CBS.  Likewise, it's easy to picture a scenario where his CBS duties interfere with his role in Atlanta.  How can he be in the NFL Today studios in New York on Sundays when he'd also likely be expected to attend Falcons games?  

It's crazy how we're even talking about this as a possibility!  The potential conflicts of interest are so vast and so obvious!  It isn't just that, though.  It's how it would affect his ability to do both jobs.  Broadcasting is not a side job.  If you want to be a broadcaster, take it seriously and treat it like the profession it is.  If you want to be in the Falcons' front office, fine.  But then you can't also be a broadcaster.  You have to pick!  That should be so self-evident I can't even believe I have to explain it!

But again, the NFL really has no one else to blame for opening this can of worms.  The Brady situation and all the special rules they had to come up with for him is what set this whole thing in motion.  Because the NFL made an exception for Tom Brady, why wouldn't they do it for others?  Sure, Brady has the star power and FOX is paying him a ton of money, so they were invested in finding a solution that worked.  But now that the precedent's been set, it'll be hard to pull it back.

While he was greatly improved this season, Tom Brady wasn't good in his first year at FOX.  Everyone knows that.  The limitations that were placed on him certainly didn't help and probably contributed to the learning curve being even steeper.  Among other restrictions, Brady wasn't allowed to enter team facilities and had to do production meetings remotely.  Most NFL broadcasters acknowledge that watching practice and having those one-on-one meetings with players and coaches are among the most important parts of their weekly prep.  Brady couldn't do that (at least not in person) last season.  He also couldn't criticize officials (although the NFL later clarified that he could, within reason).

His situation is slightly different in that, since FOX primarily covers the NFC and the Raiders are a terrible AFC team, it's unlikely that Brady will actually be in the broadcast booth for a Raiders game.  At least not for a while.  But what happens when and if that day actually does come?  Would FOX ever actually have the Raiders' part-owner in the booth covering his own team?  How would that broadcast have any shred of credibility and neutrality?  (Kevin Burkhart's the consummate professional, but he'd unfairly be guilty by association.)

Even though Brady is only a part-owner in Las Vegas, the conflicts of interest are still there and still just as obvious.  Especially now that he's becoming more hands-on in the Raiders' operations.  We know that he went over the game plan with Pete Carroll every week last season, and now he'll be leading the search for Carroll's replacement (while also calling playoff games for FOX).  He won't be going into those interviews as a broadcaster.  He'll be going into them as a team executive.  It's a completely different dynamic.

And you know it won't stop there.  As Brady gets more involved in the day-to-day with the Raiders, it'll have an even bigger impact on his job at FOX.  It seems pretty clear that his ultimate goal is franchise ownership.  Even before he started at FOX, there were questions if he'd make it thru his entire contract before leaving for a front office position.  Because they don't want to lose him, FOX is letting him do both.  But they shouldn't.  Because you need to be all-in on whichever job you choose.

With Aikman, it's a little different.  He's one of the best in the business and has been for two decades.  No one has ever questioned Troy Aikman's ability as a broadcaster or his neutrality or impartiality.  Now, because he signed on as a consultant for the Dolphins during their GM search, that credibility suddenly is being questioned.  And, because he calls Monday Night Football, it's a near certainty that Aikman will do at least one Dolphins game at some point next season.

However, Aikman's role, as far as we know, is limited to being a consultant.  ESPN has said that they don't see it interfering with his role at the network, and, if that's all he's doing, I don't think it will.  Working as a consultant isn't the same as being directly involved in the day-to-day operations of the team.  Not only is it not full-time, it's temporary by nature.  His working with the Dolphins is limited to assisting in their GM search.  Once that's done, his job, conceivably, will be over.  If it becomes a longer-term gig, different story.  But consulting with the Dolphins for a couple months and having nothing to do with the team afterwards shouldn't impact his status at ESPN at all.

Whether there's a conflict of interest with Troy Aikman or not, the fact that we're even talking about it is, once again, because of Tom Brady.  The NFL and FOX decided that they were OK with Brady working as a broadcaster and being part-owner of the Raiders.  They didn't need to allow it, but they did.  And it's why Matt Ryan thinks he can get away with doing essentially the same thing.  Someone needs to step in and stop this madness.  Because it's getting out of control.  Already.

A Banner Year Ahead

When the calendar flipped to 2026, the countdown to the America 250 celebration began.  This year already promised to be a memorable one because of the anniversary, but we'll have plenty of chances to celebrate before the Fourth of July.  In fact, there are three different instances where we'll see Team USA this year, and two of those events are taking place at home.  Then there's a fourth scheduled for the Fall.

Up first is the Winter Olympics, which are set for next month in Italy.  It'll be the first Winter Olympics in eight years without COVID restrictions, and the first in Europe since 2014.  There's obviously plenty of excitement heading into any Olympics, but this year it feels like there's even more.  That could be because of the different circumstances and finally having the Winter Games out of Asia.  But I think it's more because of how strong Team USA figures to be in so many different sports.

Mikaela Shiffrin had a disappointing Olympics four years ago.  You know she wants to redeem herself in Cortina.  And Lindsey Vonn is back!  After working for NBC in 2022, she'll be competing on NBC in 2026!  Chole Kim and Jessie Diggins are back, as well.  And the U.S. figure skating squad, which won a delayed gold in the team event in Beijing, could dominate in Milan.  Three reigning World Champions are American, and it's not crazy to think the U.S. can take gold in all three events at the Olympics, as well.  And this time, they won't have to wait if they win gold in the team event again.

And, of course, the NHL is sending its players to the Olympics for the first time since 2014.  The United States won the World Championship last year for the first time in 92 years.  And finished second at the Four Nations Face-Off.  Most of that roster makes up the Olympic roster, and USA Hockey has been clear about its expectations.  They're not hoping for a medal.  That's the bare minimum.  Not medaling would be a disappointment.  Gold is the clear goal.

Almost immediately after the Olympics end, another event that the USA expects to win begins.  The World Baseball Classic, which takes place in Houston and Miami (and Tokyo and San Juan) during Spring Training.  After losing to Japan in the final of the last edition in 2023, the Americans have put together a star-studded roster in an attempt to flip the script.

Aaron Judge is the team captain.  Cal Raleigh and Will Smith will be the catchers.  Kyle Schwarber and Bobby Witt Jr. will play.  Bryce Harper has said he intends to play.  I don't know how Mark DeRosa's gonna make a lineup with so many All-Stars available to him!  And that pitching staff!  WOW!  Both Paul Skenes AND Tarik Skubal have already committed.  With plenty more names still to be added. 

Winning the World Baseball Classic is by no means a guarantee.  That's part of the beauty of that tournament, with Major League stars on every roster.  But this could end up being the best roster that Team USA has ever assembled in six editions of the WBC.  And that includes 2017, when they won their only championship.  The pitching staff, especially, has never been this good!

Then in June and July is the big one.  The biggest sporting event of the year is the biggest World Cup ever.  FIFA President Gianni Infantino has compared it to "104 Super Bowls" over the course of six weeks.  The United States is co-hosting with Mexico and Canada, but a majority of the games are in the U.S., including the final at MetLife Stadium.  The whole World Cup will fit into the America 250 celebration, and there's a round of 16 game in Philadelphia (which is also hosting the MLB All*Star Game...for obvious reasons) on the Fourth of July!

It would be a stretch to say the United States is among the favorites at the World Cup.  I don't think anyone expects them to win.  The question is how far can they go?  Can they reach the quarterfinals or even possibly make it to the semis?  Anything less, frankly, would probably be considered a disappointment.  Especially with the teams that were drawn into the USA's group!

This isn't 1994.  When the U.S. first hosted the World Cup 32 years ago, it was about growing the game and showcasing it to a market with vast potential.  The United States wasn't a "soccer country" then.  Now it is.  This is a chance to show how far U.S. Soccer has come.  The fact that there actually are expectations for a home World Cup are proof of that.

Finally, Team USA's big 2026 ends in September with the FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup in Berlin.  The United States has been just as dominant at the World Cup as it has at the Olympics.  The four-time defending champions haven't lost a game at the World Cup since the 2006 semifinals.  And there's no reason to believe it won't become five straight titles in 2026.

There's a very real possibility that there will be a WNBA work stoppage fairly soon.  Who knows how long it'll last or how much it'll impact the season?  The WNBA usually either ends the season early enough or takes a break for the World Cup.  USA Basketball is counting on WNBA players being available.  So, it'll be very interesting to see how that all shakes out.

For the record, I fully expect there to be a WNBA season and WNBA players to participate in the World Cup.  But, if there isn't a WNBA season, the World Cup could be our first chance to see some of those stars in quite a while.  (The Unrivaled season ends in March.)  It's good to know that there will be top-level women's basketball played no matter what this year, however.

So, we've got a loaded 2026 ahead!  America's 250th birthday will be a year-long celebration.  And there will be plenty of opportunities for Team USA to contribute to that patriotic feeling at multiple events across the globe (two of which are on home soil) both before and after the birthday party of all birthday parties on the Fourth of July.

NFL Picks, Week 18

We made it!  Not just to 2026, but to the end of a crazy NFL regular season!  When the season started, there were very few, if any, people who would've had the Bears, Patriots, Jaguars and Broncos ALL winning their divisions.  Yet, we're looking at all of those teams having home playoff games.  Meanwhile, the Chiefs, Lions and either the Steelers or Ravens will be watching the playoffs at home.

It's also always so funny to me how, without fail, someone's inevitably gonna have a problem with the Week 18 schedule.  There are three standalone games and three winner-take-all matchups.  So, it stood to reason that those three games would be plugged into the standalone windows.  Yes, CBS and FOX ended up with the short straw, but that's what happens in Week 18 sometimes.  And putting Steelers-Ravens on Sunday night isn't East Coast bias.  It's a rivalry game between two popular teams that they usually have on Sunday night every season (and they probably didn't want to have back-to-back Sunday night games in the same place, so it makes complete sense that they picked Pittsburgh-Baltimore for Game 272).

Panthers (8-8) at Buccaneers (7-9): Carolina-A Carolina win just makes life easier for everybody.  Of course, the Bucs beating Miami would've made this a true winner-take-all, but now we're looking at a situation where a Tampa Bay win and an Atlanta win forces a three-way tie where the Panthers win the division anyway.  That would, of course, also mean that the NFC South winner finishes 8-9 and hosts a 12-win wild card team (likely on Saturday afternoon).  Again, a Panthers win takes care of all that.

Seahawks (13-3) at 49ers (12-4): San Francisco-The winner of this one is the No. 1 seed in the NFC.  And don't think that's a small thing.  Especially for the 49ers, who are hosting the Super Bowl and could literally play their final five games of the season at home.  The difference between No. 1, No. 5 and especially No. 6 is huge for the three NFC West teams, too.  Whoever loses this one has to go on the road to face an East-coast team next week (and probably early Saturday if they're the 5-seed).  The good news for the Seahawks is that they just won in Carolina last week.

Saints (6-10) at Falcons (7-9): Atlanta-I've been saying all season that the Falcons are perhaps the most frustrating team in the league to watch.  Because you never know who's gonna show up!  This is a team with some really bad losses, but has also beaten a bunch of playoff teams.  Imagine what would've happened had they actually shown up for every game!  They'd be running away with the division instead of already eliminated.  Think about this, too: Atlanta can finish in a three-way tie for first or a two-way tie for last!

Browns (4-12) at Bengals (6-10): Cincinnati-Cincinnati seems to be trying to leave the NFL a message heading into the 2026 season.  The Bengals have scored 82 points in their last two games, both of which came against bad teams (Miami and Arizona).  They end the season against another bad team, albeit one that upset the Steelers last week (to set up the Ravens-Steelers showdown for the division).  Don't expect them to do it again.

Packers (9-6-1) at Vikings (8-8): Minnesota-Green Bay is locked into the 7-seed, so I'm curious to see who plays for the Packers and for how long.  One guy we know will play is Trevon Diggs.  Because why wouldn't they end the regular season the same way they started it...by snagging one of the Cowboys' best defensive players?  Anyway, Minnesota actually has a lot to play for.  J.J. McCarthy will start, as they look to finish not just with a winning record, but with a five-game winning streak.  Which, depending on what happens with the Panthers-Bucs game, could be a better record than the NFC South winner (which, of course, has Vikings' fans panties in a bunch about how "unfair" that is).

Cowboys (7-8-1) at Giants (3-13): Dallas-Before all the Travon Diggs drama, the Cowboys had a pretty solid win in Washington on Christmas.  It was an important win, too.  It set them up to finish .500 (which is only possible in the NFL now if you have a tie).  That does matter to them, even though they entered this season expecting so much more.  The Giants already cost themselves the No. 1 pick with their win last week, so this week they'll go back to being the Giants.

Titans (3-13) at Jaguars (12-4): Jacksonville-Jacksonville's exceptional season can really only end one way.  The Jaguars are playing a bad Titans team.  If they lose, they don't deserve to win the division or have a shot at the No. 1 seed.  With the way this season has gone, though, they also don't deserve to not have a home playoff game.  They can't rely on the Colts.  They'll take care of their own business, get the win, then watch the late games to see if they're the 1-, 2- or 3-seed.

Colts (8-8) at Texans (11-5): Houston-When the Colts were 8-2 at their bye week, this certainly wasn't how they were expecting their season to end.  Of course, injuries had a lot to do with their six-game skid, but still, you know they have to be extremely disappointed.  The Colts' fall coincided with the Texans' rise.  Houston will be a very dangerous team in the playoffs, even if they have to go on the road.  That's not a guarantee, though.  They'll do their part, then hope they get some help from the Titans.

Jets (3-13) at Bills (11-5): Buffalo-For their final game at Highmark Stadium, the Bills are bringing back the red helmets!  There's a slight possibility they'll have a home playoff game, but everyone understands that this is pretty much it for the venerable stadium.  Where the Bills are headed next week is obviously still up in the air, but all of that, frankly, isn't relevant.  This is about saying farewell to their longtime home, and they simply can't allow it to end with a loss to the Jets.

Lions (8-8) at Bears (11-5): Chicago-Losing last week wasn't that devastating for the Bears.  Their chances of getting the 1-seed were slim either way, and they have the tiebreaker over the Eagles.  So, all they need to do is beat the Lions and they get the 2-seed (which means a home game against the Packers next week).  I think most fans are excited about the possibility of seeing the Chicago-Green Bay rivalry in the playoffs, especially after that insane game two weeks ago!

Chargers (11-5) at Broncos (13-3): Denver-Had the Chargers beaten the Texans last week, this one would've been for the AFC West (and likely in one of the primetime slots).  Instead, Denver enters the regular season finale with the division already wrapped up.  They still need a win to lock up the 1-seed, though, and don't think that's an unimportant detail.  They very much want the AFC playoffs going through Denver.  And the Chargers know they're going on the road next week either way.

Chiefs (6-10) at Raiders (2-14): Kansas City-Is this Travis Kelce's last game?  (I think yes.)  Is it Pete Carroll's?  (I think no.)  Either way, the Chiefs and Raiders will be happy to leave the 2025 season in the past.  Although, Las Vegas could get a nice consolation prize in the No. 1 pick.  They seemed to understand what was at stake last week against the Giants.  I'd imagine that came into their thought process for sitting Blake Bowers and Maxx Crosby.

Cardinals (3-13) at Rams (11-5): Rams-There's only so much the Rams can do about their playoff fate, which could already be determined by the time they play.  They know they're going on the road next week and know they would much prefer a trip to Charlotte or Tampa than Philadelphia or Chicago.  Even if their seed is already locked in, Sean McVay said the starters are playing.  Which makes sense for a team that's lost two straight and needs to find its groove heading into the playoffs.

Dolphins (7-9) at Patriots (13-3): New England-Remember a decade ago when the Patriots and Broncos were the 1- and 2-seeds in the AFC every year while they had Brady and Peyton?  Well, here we are again, looking at Denver and New England being the top two seeds in the AFC.  Drake Maye might've locked up the MVP last week, and Mike Vrabel's certainly got a strong Coach of the Year case.  They can possibly drop to the 3-seed with a loss, but don't expect that to happen.

Commanders (4-12) at Eagles (11-5): Philadelphia-After these two met in the NFC Championship Game last season, it was probably the hope/expectation that this matchup would decide the NFC East.  That's obviously not how it turned out.  The Eagles have clinched the division and know they're probably the No. 3 seed in the playoffs.  There's still a chance they can be No. 2, though, so they'll have to play their starters (at least at the beginning of the game).  If they were locked in, I'd pick Washington.  Since they aren't, I'm taking the Eagles.

Ravens (8-8) at Steelers (9-7): Pittsburgh-Game 272 is the AFC North Championship Game.  Pittsburgh could've clinched last week, but it almost seems right that they lost to the Browns and set up this one as an elimination game for both teams.  (It's the Ravens' third straight game on NBC/Peacock, BTW.)  With the way the Steelers' season has been going, it's weird to think of them being in this position.  Needing a win to clinch the division or missing the playoffs entirely with a loss.  It's also somewhat surprising to see the Ravens in this position after their terrible start.  All season long, it's been Pittsburgh's division to lose.  That's still the case in the last game.  The Steelers win the AFC North.

Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 162-93-1