NFL Picks, 2026 Week 5

I should just stop picking Thursday night games entirely.  I don't think I've gotten one right all season.  It's not like I'm doing much better on Sundays or Mondays, but the Thursdays have been particularly glaring.  This week, another Thursday night loss for me.  So, another week starting 0-1.

But, hey, at least I'm not 0-4 like the Texans, Titans, Dolphins and Chargers!  That's right four AFC teams are winless a quarter of the way into the season!  (And let's not forget the one-win Jets, who've only beaten the Titans.)  That should drop to three with Houston and Tennessee playing each other this week.

Thursday Night: Dallas (Loss)

Eagles (2-2) vs Jaguars (3-1): Philadelphia-Because of how bad the rest of the AFC South has been, the first-place Jaguars already have a three-game lead in the division.  How big will it be when they get back from London, where they'll spend the next two weeks.  It isn't the first time they've had back-to-back London games, but it IS the first time they'll be the home team in both (which is due to the construction at their stadium, giving workers a full, uninterrupted month during the season).  Anyway, the first of the two is a much tougher assignment against an Eagles team that lost a tough one last week.

Bears (3-1) at Packers (2-2): Chicago-They moved this one from 4:30 to 1:00, which says all you need to know about the state of the Packers and this rivalry at the moment.  Of course, the real reason is because of the NLCS.  Now the Packers and Brewers games are staggered instead of back-to-back.  FOX also had a better game that it couldn't move out of the 4:30 window (San Francisco-Seattle), so it made sense.  And we'll probably see what happened in last year's playoff game happen again.

Texans (0-4) at Titans (0-4): Houston-Tennessee entering this game at 0-4 isn't that surprising.  Both teams being 0-4, though?  I don't think anyone saw that coming.  Especially the Texans.  They came into this season with playoff expectations.  It's already gonna be an uphill battle to get there.  But, in the AFC South, it's doable.  Not if they don't beat the Titans, though.

Bengals (2-2) at Dolphins (0-4): Cincinnati-My feelings on the Dolphins should be pretty well known at this point.  Miami isn't good.  Cincinnati is sitting at 2-2 after a home loss to Jacksonville last week.  And, it's crazy what a difference that is in the AFC North.  That division looks like it's gonna be tight all season.  Which means the Bengals can't afford a loss to an inferior Dolphins team.

Raiders (3-1) at Patriots (2-2): New England-The Patriots are impossible to figure out!  They dominate the Steelers.  Then get their butts kicked by Jacksonville.  Then become the first visiting team to win in the Bills' new stadium.  Was the Jaguars game simply a glitch?  The Raiders are coming off their first loss of the season, but that was a game in Kansas City.  And they beat the Patriots at Foxboro last year in Week 1.  So, New England will be on high alert and try to avoid another letdown.

Vikings (4-0) at Saints (1-3): Minnesota-When the Saints went toe-to-toe with the Lions, then beat the Ravens, it looked like they actually might not be that bad.  They even looked OK in their loss to the Raiders.  Then they played the Falcons on Monday night and lost by 21 in a game that wasn't even that close.  So, now I'm not sure again.  Either way, I don't see them beating the Vikings.

Browns (3-1) at Jets (1-3): Cleveland-Cleveland's 3-1 and tied for first place with Baltimore.  That probably wasn't on anyone's bingo card.  Some people figured the Browns might not win three games all year.  This week, they should get to four against a Jets team that's reverted to being the Jets.  Although, they're doing playing NFC North teams for a while, so maybe all they needed was the more familiar opponent.  Regardless, Cleveland has that big showdown with the Ravens next week, and the Browns would love to go into that game knowing they're at worst still tied.

Colts (2-2) at Steelers (2-2): Pittsburgh-Indianapolis has rebounded from its 0-2 start with back-to-back victories, including a dominant effort against the Commanders in London.  Can they keep it going in Pittsburgh?  The Steelers have been two very different teams at home and on the road this season.  Both of their wins have come at home.  Both of their losses have been bad and on the road.  Fortunately for them, this game's at Heinz Field (or whatever it's called now).

Giants (3-1) at Commanders (1-3): Giants-Even without Jaxson Dart, John Harbaugh has the Giants in first place.  Has the schedule played a big part in their 3-1 start?  Absolutely!  But they've beaten the teams they're supposed to and taken advantage of Philly and Dallas struggling.  And that soft schedule will continue for the next few weeks.  There's a very realistic chance that they could hit their bye at 6-1.

Broncos (2-2) at Chargers (0-4): Denver-These were both playoff teams last year, and I think a lot of people were expecting that they might both be again.  But, instead, the Chargers' season has been an absolute mess.  I'm not sure what they can do to salvage it at this point, either.  They've got back-to-back division games ahead of them, starting with a matchup against Denver at SoFi.  A win would be huge in helping the Chargers maybe start to finally gain some momentum, but another close loss seems more likely.

Lions (2-2) at Cardinals (1-3): Detroit-Give Arizona credit.  They've been pesky.  They got blown out in Week 2, but the Cardinals have been in each of their last two games against the 49ers and Giants.  It very well could be the same situation again this week.  The Lions were certainly taken by surprise in that loss to Carolina.  But that might say more about the Panthers than it does about Detroit.  This trip to the desert should be good for them.

49ers (4-0) at Seahawks (3-1): Seattle-FOX probably would've made this the national game even if Bears-Packers had stayed in the late window.  And with good reason.  They might be the two best teams in the NFC.  Which makes this a huge early-season matchup.  Either San Francisco will have a two-game lead and currently own the tiebreaker.  Or, they'll be tied for first with Seattle holding the tiebreaker.  I know it's only Week 5, but with the NFC West boasting three really good teams, their games against each other will take on that much more importance.

Ravens (3-1) at Falcons (2-2): Atlanta-It's the last of three straight primetime games for the Falcons (who only have one remaining game that isn't currently scheduled for 1:00...Week 9 against Cincinnati in Madrid).  So, all that freaking out about the nation being subjected to Atlanta three weeks in a row can be calmed down now.  Especially since the primetime lights have brought out the best in the Falcons.  They've gotten the chance to show people that they're better than they were given credit for.  Can they really silence the doubters by knocking off the Ravens and going 3-0 in those primetime games?

Bills (3-1) at Rams (2-2): Rams-Remember when this was the kickoff game after the Rams won the Super Bowl and the Bills went into SoFi and won?  The Rams sure do!  They certainly haven't had the start they expected.  And they certainly haven't played like the team that was a popular preseason Super Bowl pick.  The Bills were a popular preseason Super Bowl pick, too.  Could this be a preview of another game that will be on ESPN in the same stadium four months from now?  Don't be surprised if it is.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 8-8
Overall: 33-32

Who Won't Be Back

For the 17th time in the last 18 seasons, the Yankees won't be playing in the World Series.  For the second straight year, they were eliminated in the Division Series by a division rival that had thumped them all season, proving that they were only the second-best team in the AL East both years.  Might things have been different if Aaron Judge had been healthy?  Perhaps.  But that's irrelevant.  The bottom line is they had yet another early postseason exit.

Every time a season ends, a postmortem follows.  An assessment of what happened and what areas of improvement need to be addressed heading into next season.  You can rest assured that the Yankees will do both.  And it will lead to several players not returning in 2027 (assuming there is a season).

Last offseason, the Yankees deemed themselves "close" and decided to essentially run it back.  Which is what they did.  They made some minor moves, but didn't make any drastic changes.  I expect the same thing to happen this offseason.  Because a healthy Aaron Judge and some breaks going differently could very well lead to a different outcome.

While they probably will almost run it back again, I still expect the Yankees to make some offseason moves.  Particularly to address the bullpen.  Regardless of how many players return and how many new faces are added, there are definitely a few who won't be back in pinstripes.  Among those who we've likely see play their last game in a Yankees uniform are...

Jazz Chisholm Jr.: This one seems obvious.  Jazz was in the final year of his contract in 2026 and will become a free agent as soon as the World Series is over.  There's virtually no chance he re-signs with the Yankees and everyone knows it.  He was a great addition in 2024, but has worn out his welcome in the Bronx and the team is ready to move on from him.  Especially now that Anthony Volpe has emerged as an option at second base.  Volpe going down to the Minors and learning how to play second essentially sealed Jazz's fate.  

Paul Goldschmidt: It was a bit of a surprise that the future Hall of Famer re-signed with the Yankees prior to this season, but it ended up being a savvy move.  Goldy was supposed to be nothing more than a right-handed bat off the bench, but proved to be a Godsend for a little while there when he was playing every day and was one of the more productive bats in the lineup.  Then they got Luis Garcia Jr. and he went back to his intended role.  It's because Garcia and Ben Rice are both under contract next season that Goldschmidt becomes expendable, which, unfortunately, means his two-year stint in the Bronx is likely over.

Trent Grisham: Grisham accepted a qualifying offer to come back in 2026, which was a bit of a surprise to many.  They were prepared to let him walk and move on with Spencer Jones and/or Jasson Dominguez in center field, but were also perfectly happy to have Grisham back after he was so good in 2025.  He wasn't nearly as good in 2026 and Jones emerged as an everyday player.  He'll likely be the starting center fielder next season, leaving nowhere for Grisham to play.

Tim Hill: Hill used to be one of the most dependable arms in the Yankees bullpen.  That reliably lefty who you could count on seeing virtually every day.  He actually had the second-most appearances on the team this season.  However, Hill was also left off the roster for both rounds of the playoffs despite not having any sort of injury that people were aware of.  That should tell you all you need to know about where he stands.  (With that being said, it also wouldn't be a total surprise if he comes back on another cheap, one-year deal.  It just seems unlikely.)

Amed Rosario: Like Hill, Rosario was left off the roster for the Division Series against Tampa Bay.  He's a player the Yankees long coveted when they finally got him at the 2025 trade deadline, then brought him back on a one-year deal this season.  However, they have an abundance of infielders, so there isn't really any place where Rosario fits, especially with who's already under contract for next year.

Then there are those who aren't definite goners, but it wouldn't be a surprise if they were.  Can I envision them coming back?  Yes.  But I can also see them being traded or, if they have Minor League options, starting the year in Scranton (which might happen anyway since the Minor League CBA doesn't expire until after the 2027 season, so they'd at least get the chance to play somewhere even if the lockout does result in cancelled games)...

Jasson Dominguez: Dominguez was once seen as part of the Yankees' outfield of the future.  His place is nowhere near as secure as it once was.  Spencer Jones has clearly risen above him in the hierarchy, and next year's outfield figures to be Bellinger, Jones and Judge, with Heliot Ramos as the fourth outfielder.  So, that leaves Dominguez as the odd man out.  A young, switch-hitting outfielder will definitely generate plenty of trade interest.  Or, you keep him in the organization as your first option for an outfield call-up.

Anthony Volpe: Going to the Minors and learning how to play second potentially saved Volpe's Yankees career.  If he was still exclusively a shortstop, it's almost certain he would've been traded during the offseason (since he ain't getting the shortstop job back from Lombard).  Instead, he'll probably be penciled in as the Opening Day second baseman.  I do think there's still a possibility he gets traded, though.  So, even though I think he'll likely be back (and probably the starter at second), there's the chance he isn't.

Giancarlo Stanton: Yankees fans have been counting down the days Stanton's contract is no longer weighing the team down.  Well, 2027 is the last guaranteed year of that massive deal (with a club option for 2028 that almost certainly won't be picked up).  Because of his contract, they can't move him.  So, it's either ride it out for that final year, when he'll be essentially a right-handed pinch hitter and occasional DH (provided he's actually healthy) or do what they did with DJ LeMahieu and just buy him out at some point during the season.  As unlikely as that might be, it's still an option.

There will definitely be some changes to the Yankees' roster in 2027.  They may involve the players I mentioned.  They may involve others.  Either way, the team that takes the field on Opening Day in 2027 will look different than the one that got swept by the Rays in the Division Series.  The only question is how different?

Baseball's Postseason Conundrum

According to MLB owners, the Dodgers will win every World Series from now until the end of time and small market teams have "no chance" to compete.  That's why, in their opinion, the sport "needs" a salary cap and why they'll be locking out the players on Dec. 1.  So, we'd better enjoy this postseason while we can.  Because who knows when the 2027 season will actually start?  Or if there will even be one at all.

This postseason presents a very interesting catch-22 for the owners' position, though.  Their argument is that the Dodgers, Yankees and other large market, big-spending teams are "ruining" baseball.  But they're also most likely secretly rooting for a Dodgers-Yankees World Series.  Why?  Because it'll support their narrative.  And because they know it'll generate high ratings from two of the largest, most loyal fanbases in the sport.

Meanwhile, the Rays and Brewers are the top seeds in their respective leagues.  It's very plausible that we could see Tampa Bay, Milwaukee or both in the World Series.  Which is exactly what the other 28 owners don't want.  Because not only is it two small markets, it's two teams that they fear people won't want to watch.  So, just imagine how low the ratings could be if they're both in the World Series!

That, right there, exposes the hypocrisy of the owners' general stance.  Teams like the Dodgers and Yankees are "bad" and represent everything "wrong" with baseball when it suits the narrative.  But, as a whole, they don't actually when the Dodgers and Yankees are doing well.  Because that means more money is coming in.  Which means more money is going into their pockets.

So, which is it?  Are the Dodgers and Yankees good for baseball?  Or are they bad?  Because you can't have it both ways!  Likewise, do you actually want to see someone different in the World Series (as you claim)?  Or would that ruin your narrative?

Likewise, many "fans" face a similar dilemma.  The "baseball needs a salary cap" camp should, theoretically, want to see a Brewers-Rays World Series.  But they probably don't.  Because it goes against their narrative.  And it would be a World Series that "nobody" would watch.  So, do you actually want to see the small market teams in the World Series or not?

The Dodgers and Yankees are the obvious targets for the haters because they're the two behemoths, but the Braves and Padres also have top 10 payrolls.  Will it still be a "problem" if either of them wins the NL pennant?  And, the White Sox may play in Chicago, but they actually have a bottom third payroll.  I pose the same question about them.  Would their winning the AL pennant expose "everything that's wrong" with baseball?  Or would it be what it actually is--an incredible story of a team going from three straight 100-loss seasons to the World Series in the fourth year?

You know something else?  Of the eight remaining teams, three have never won the World Series.  One (Cleveland) hasn't won it in nearly 80 years.  The White Sox won the title 20 years ago.  It's their only one in the last 110 years.  The Yankees' 2009 title is their only one in 25 years.  So, it's only the Dodgers and Braves who've won the World Series anything close to recently among this year's remaining playoff participants.  But don't tell that to those who want to believe everybody else "can't compete."

Of course, the Brewers have been bucking that narrative for the better part of a decade as it is.  And they've actually helped feed into that narrative with their failure to advance beyond the NLCS during that span.  Last year, they got absolutely destroyed by the Dodgers in an NLC sweep.  Which just added fuel to the "it's inevitable the Dodgers will win" narrative (the fact that the Dodgers came very close to losing to the Blue Jays is apparently irrelevant).  So, Milwaukee "can't" win the NL pennant.  Otherwise, it would completely contradict their argument.

Same thing with the Rays.  They "can't" win.  Because who wants a small market success story when you can use the Yankees as your example of how the large market big spenders are "ruining" the game?  And, oh, by the way, Cleveland plays in a small market, too.  It's very possible that there could be three small market teams among the four LCS participants.  None of which will matter to the salary cap brigade if the Dodgers are the fourth one.  And it really won't matter if the Dodgers three-peat (which no team has done since the 1998-2000 Yankees).  Which would actually be a pretty great story, too.

As I've been saying all along, my position on whether baseball "needs" a salary cap or not has nothing to do with what team I support.  It has everything to do with the fact that the narrative the owners are pushing and have gotten so many people to believe simply isn't true.  Large-market franchises do have some built-in advantages.  I'm not denying that.  But to say small-market clubs "can't compete" isn't even close to accurate. 

Well-run teams with smart front offices like the Brewers, Guardians and Rays are proof that it can be done.  And they do it consistently, too.  So, it's not like they're randomly good for a year or two before fading back into irrelevance.  The fact that they haven't won the World Series is the only reason that narrative even exists.  But, again, if one of them were to win the World Series (or, God forbid, Milwaukee faces either Tampa Bay or Cleveland in the World Series, the owners wouldn't like that either.  They don't want to admit it, but the owners actually don't have a problem with the Dodgers' recent run.  For multiple reasons.

If that sounds cynical, that's the point.  The owners are contradicting themselves with their insistence on a salary cap for "competitive balance" while also enjoying the financial spoils that come with the postseason success of large market clubs.  Which is it?  Are you tired of seeing the Dodgers win?  Or do you like the revenue that they bring into the game?  Do you want to see the Brewers and/or Rays reach the World Series?  Or would that go against the entire argument you're trying to make and starting a work stoppage over?

No owner will admit this, of course.  They're so dug into their position that they either don't see or conveniently ignore this contradiction.  But it's actually pretty transparent.  Only the Dodgers and/or Yankees (or, to a lesser extent, the Braves) winning the World Series "proves" their point.  Which is why that's exactly what they want to happen.  That way they get the best of both worlds.  Raking in the money while still being able to play the victim.  It would be a win-win.  Right before they make everyone who loves baseball lose.

NFL Picks, 2026 Week 4

I hope you like those NFL Network 9:30 AM European games.  Because we've got a whole month's full of them!  Three straight in London before finishing out October at the Stade de France.  This after already having games in Australia and Rio this season.  Although, I'm not sure any of them will be able to compare to Ravens-Cowboys.  That might've been the best international game the NFL has ever had!

Thursday Night: Pittsburgh (Loss)

Colts (1-2) vs Commanders (1-2): Washington-Both of these teams head to London having picked up their first win of the season last week.  Indianapolis beating Houston wasn't nearly as big a surprise as the Commanders' victory over Seattle.  Which one will carry over that momentum, pick up their second straight victory, and move to .500?  I'll go with Washington.  The Commanders seem to be in OK shape with Marcus Mariota under center instead of Jayden Daniels.

Patriots (1-2) at Bills (3-0): Buffalo-New England's win in Buffalo last season set the tone for the entire rest of the season.  The Patriots won the division and ended up in the Super Bowl.  The Bills were a wild card and fired their head coach.  Now, of course, they have a new stadium that they're playing in for the third straight week.  This will be a different game than the previous two, but the result should be similar.  The Bills stay undefeated.

Jets (1-2) at Bears (2-1): Chicago-Chicago loses its starting quarterback, then goes and gets a dominant performance from its backup in a statement Monday night win.  The Bears can win without him.  Not just win, beat good teams.  If they can beat the Eagles that badly, the Jets shouldn't be a problem at all.  Although, the Jets have given two other NFC North teams (the Packers and Lions) fits in their last two games.  (Incredibly, they have to wait until Week 17 to play the Vikings.)  Still, expect the Bears to get to 3-1.

Jaguars (2-1) at Bengals (2-1): Cincinnati-While I'm still not ready to jump on the Bengals bandwagon, I'll acknowledge that this team may be better than I originally thought.  Of course, their success still depends on Joe Burrow's health.  He's been healthy so far, and these are the results.  Meanwhile, the Jaguars played New England last week absolutely rolled them.  So, whoever wins this game will be a very deserving 3-1.

Cardinals (1-2) at Giants (2-1): Giants-With the Eagles' loss on Monday night, the Giants are tied for first place.  Crazy, huh?!  Will it last?  Probably not.  But they've got a great chance at getting to 3-1 this week.  Arizona had to play a pair of division games after that Week 1 upset over the Chargers, which is the primary reason why their record is 1-2.  That cross country trip to play a 1:00 game isn't an easy one, though.  That's why I'm going with the Giants here.

Rams (1-2) at Eagles (2-1): Philadelphia-Most people expected these to be two of the top teams not just in the NFC, but the entire NFL.  And they still might be.  But neither one has looked like it so far.  Especially the Rams.  The Eagles just fell victim to having a bad night on the same night the Bears had a good one.  I think they're more likely to bounce back than the Rams, who'll be in a serious hole after a 1-3 start.

Packers (1-2) at Buccaneers (0-3): Tampa Bay-Last Thursday taught us something very important.  The Green Bay Packers might not be that good.  Frankly, Tampa Bay may not be, either.  So, I guess we'll find out which Bay is worse this week.  The Bucs have looked slightly less bad, so I guess I'll go with them.  Not confidently, though.

Titans (0-3) at Ravens (2-1): Baltimore-Wow!  What a win!  That game in Rio could be the defining moment of the Ravens' season.  It's certainly the defining moment of the Post-Harbaugh Era so far.  Hopefully there's no letdown after the thrill of that victory.  Because a home game against a bad Titans team should be a win no problem.  Those are the kinds of games where those letdowns can happen, though.  We've got the Derrick Henry sidebar, too.  And you know he ain't losing to his old team!

Cowboys (1-2) at Texans (0-3): Dallas-On the flip side, that was a gut-wrenching loss in Rio marred by a lot of mistakes in late-game management by Dallas.  Now they find themselves staring at 1-3 if they don't beat a Texans team that's as desperate for a win as they are.  If not more so.  The Texans were 0-3 last year and still recovered to make the playoffs.  Can they really do it again?  Can they do it if fall to 0-4?  Believe it or not, in the AFC South, it is possible.

Dolphins (0-3) at Vikings (3-0): Minnesota-Miami being 0-3 isn't that much of a surprise.  Minnesota being 3-0, meanwhile, has definitely gotten people's attention.  The Vikings are in such good shape that they traded J.J. McCarthy to the Giants.  Will reality eventually set in?  Sure.  But this is the easy part of their schedule and they have an early bye.  I can easily see Minnesota being 5-0 when that bye week hits.  Which, of course, would mean beating Miami since they have to get to 4-0 first.

Chiefs (3-0) at Raiders (3-0): Kansas City-Who would've figured these two would both be undefeated when they first meet this season?  The Chiefs, sure.  But the Raiders?  Definitely not.  Of course, Kansas City is a much tougher test than their first three opponents.  I guess we'll get to find out how good the Raiders actually are.  They won't beat Kansas City, but if they can keep this game close, maybe they're for real.

Broncos (2-1) at 49ers (3-0): San Francisco-CBS has two really good games in the late doubleheader window this week!  Jim and J.J. are doing Chiefs-Raiders, but I don't think there would've been many complaints if they had this one instead.  Denver used another second half comeback to shock the Rams.  They know they can't keep relying on that.  But if it works, it works.  A place where it probably won't work is San Francisco.  The undefeated 49ers will stay just that and maintain their lead in the NFC West.

Chargers (0-3) at Seahawks (2-1): Seattle-How much will that loss in Washington end up hurting the Seahawks in the long run?  Maybe not at all.  They haven't played the 49ers or Rams yet, so that loss could end up being just a footnote in their season.  Still, it was a surprise.  Also a surprise is the Chargers being 0-3.  It's the first time Jim Harbaugh has ever been 0-3, and he's admitted that he needs to get more out of Justin Herbert.  Unfortunately, going to Seattle isn't really the best place for him to try and make himself right.

Lions (2-1) at Panthers (1-2): Detroit-Detroit has scored exactly 31 points in each of its first three games.  So, that's the magic number Carolina has to strive towards and the Lions defense knows they need to keep the Panthers under.  It is cool that Sunday Night Football is returning to Charlotte after all these years, even if the matchup is an odd one for NBC to choose.  At least we'll get to see the Lions on national TV, though.

Falcons (1-2) at Saints (1-2): New Orleans-This game was selected for Monday night because it's as close as they could get to the 20th anniversary of that first game back at the Superdome after Katrina, when the Saints memorably beat the Falcons.  And, as it turns out, this game isn't as bad as it originally looked on paper.  New Orleans is 1-2, but was very competitive in its two losses.  The Falcons, meanwhile, beat the Packers in the first of their three straight primetime games.  This one's actually for first place, too.  The New Orleans Saints will be in first place after a quarter of the season.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 7-9
Overall: 25-24 

Reseeding the Playoffs

Down the stretch and during the first two days of the MLB Postseason, one topic has been discussed quite frequently.  How the AL East has really been screwed by the current playoff system.  For the second year in a row, the AL East put three teams in the playoffs.  For the second straight year, they were the 1-, 4- and 5-seeds, meaning they made up an entire side of the bracket!  And for the third time in the last five seasons, AL East teams had the top two records in the league.

What that says, more than anything, is how good the AL East is.  It's easily the best division in baseball.  Combine that with both the Central and West being down (the AL West, of course, had a historically bad season this year) and that's how you get the three best teams all being in the same division.  And, because Baseball has a set bracket, the quirk of all three of those teams having to get through each other while the other side is considerably weaker (although, last year's Mariners won 90 games and were certainly a deserving ALCS participant).

Is it necessarily fair to any of the AL East teams?  No.  Is it really a reward for the No. 1 seed to face the best remaining team (record-wise), especially when it's a team they're so familiar with and vice versa?  No.  But does that mean a complete overhaul of the entire system is required?  Also no.

This "problem" isn't unique to baseball.  In football, the division winners get the top four seeds.  There's inevitably going to be a division (NFC West) where two really good teams fight for the division title, only for one of them to end up a wild card and have to go on the road.  Every year, there's at least one game on Wild Card Weekend where the wild card team has the better record than the division winner they're facing.  Remember two years ago when the 14-3 Vikings were the 5-seed in the NFC?!  Was that "fair?"  Honestly, I have no problem with it.  It's a reward for winning your division.

That's exactly what Baseball's playoff format does.  The difference between the 1- seed and 4-seed (aka home field advantage in the Division Series) in the AL last year was the Blue Jays' kicking the Yankees' asses in Toronto all season.  Had one of those games been flipped, the seeds would've been too.  This format puts an emphasis on winning your division, which is the whole point of having divisions in the first place.

Teams know that.  If they don't win their division, they have to play an extra round.  Until 2022, not winning your division meant you had to play a single, winner-take-all game.  So, if you think about it, this format is more forgiving than the previous one.  Ever since the postseason was expanded beyond just four teams in each league, the impetus has been on winning your division.  Everybody knows that going in.  And it's not like the second-best team being a wild card is a new phenomenon either.

Of course, that hasn't stopped people from talking about the inherent unfairness of the AL East having its own side of the playoff bracket.  The most popular refrain is how they should reseed between the Wild Card Series and Division Series.  Although, I'm not sure how much that would actually help since, if the 3-seed were to beat the 6-seed, it wouldn't change the matchups anyway.  Logistically, that wouldn't work either.  In football, they can do it because they get a week off between games.  In baseball, they get one or two days.  You can't have the entire playoff field waiting around for the final series to end before they even know who they're playing in the next round.  (That's one of the reasons hockey went to its ridiculous current format.  Having the set bracket.)

Another common "solution" is seeding the teams strictly based on record, which is what the NBA and WNBA do (the WNBA doesn't even rank by conference, they do a European soccer model with just one leaguewide table).  But, again, what's the point of even having divisions then?  There needs to be an incentive for winning your division beyond just being guaranteed a playoff spot.  And, yes, sometimes the No. 1 seed will end up playing the second- or third-best team in the Division Series.  If you're the No. 1 seed, it means you're the best team.  So, that shouldn't matter.

Likewise, there's been some clamoring for extending the Wild Card Series from a best-of-3 to at least a best-of-5.  The argument there is based on the fact that the two lower-seeded wild card teams could end up not having a home playoff game.  "It's like they were never even in the playoffs," is the common complaint.  To which I say, "So?"  In the old format, they wouldn't have a home playoff game, either.  The 5-seed would visit the 4-seed in the single Wild Card Game (and not have a home game if they lost) and the 6-seed wouldn't even be in the playoffs.

Think about how difficult that would make things logistically, too.  I find it funny how people don't even realize the irony of wanting the playoffs to not extend too far into November, yet, at the same time, wanting to expand the Wild Card round.  You extend it, that means those series will run longer, which would obviously push back the start of the remaining rounds.  It would also mean that the 1- and 2-seeds would have an even longer wait between the end of the regular season and the start of the Division Series.

It's also worth keeping in mind that whatever you do in one league, you have to do in the other.  And there's been no issue with playoff seeding in the National League in either of the past two seasons.  In both 2025 and 2026, the NL seeds were totally aligned by record.  There actually hasn't been an NL wild card team with a better record than any of the division winners since the 2022 Mets (who had the same record as the Braves, but lost the tiebreaker).

So, there isn't any sort of "problem" whatsoever with the current playoff format in the National League.  What that shows is the NL has more balance than the AL.  It also shows how there's nothing wrong with the format.  If it works just fine in the NL, the "problem" is more about the imbalance in the AL than the playoff setup.  While it happens fairly regularly in the AL, it doesn't in the NL.  That should tell you all you need to know.  The AL is the problem.  Not the format!

Simply put, changing the format would be a massive overreaction.  It also wouldn't really do much since the top wild card would still be the 4-seed, and they'd still face the 1-seed in the Division Series.  Likewise, it would be a non-issue if the AL wasn't so top-heavy and the AL West wasn't so historically bad this season.  Don't forget, Houston was the dominant team in the American League for the better part of a decade.  So, it's not like it's always been like this or will continue to be like this indefinitely.

While it's unfortunate that the two best teams in the American League will meet in the Division Series instead of the ALCS, it's not like that hasn't happened before.  It's not the first time, and it won't be the last time.  That will be the case as long as the two best teams come from the same division.  Which is a "problem" that isn't exclusive to baseball.  Or anything that needs to be rectified.

Baseball Playoff Preview

People complaining about the Yankees always getting the primetime game in the playoffs is an annual rite of Fall, but this year, it's just silly.  NBC has the Wild Card Series.  Yankees-Red Sox was NBC's highest-rated Sunday Night Baseball game this season (despite viewers having to miss the first three innings because golf ran long).  I mean, come on!  We've known for weeks that it was gonna be Yankees-Red Sox.  Was there any doubt that series would get the primetime slot?  Complain about it all you want, but it was obvious!

Fans are, of course, complaining about all of the other start times, but they were all fairly obvious, in fact.  The Padres couldn't be the early game and were the only team that could host a late game, so that was easy.  They weren't gonna put the Chicago teams at the same time, and they weren't gonna subject the nation to the AL West winner, so that seemed like it was pretty clearly headed for the afternoon on Peacock.  Which left the game in Atlanta for the NBC afternoon slot.  And, frankly, that's the second-best game matchup-wise, so it made perfect sense from that perspective, too.

As for the Division Series start times, well, that depends on who wins the Wild Card Series.  And those Division Series, especially in the NL, should be really good!  I can actually see all six National League teams winning the pennant.  The AL pennant, meanwhile, is almost certainly coming out of the East.  What are each team's chances, though?  Let's rank them in order of who's got the advantage for World Series home field.

Brewers: Milwaukee really has become the standard for regular season success.  This is the second year in a row they've had the best record in baseball.  Of course, all of their regular season wins haven't translated to a pennant.  Last year, they got swept in the NLCS.  So, how will this year be different?  Well, they've got the best pitcher on the planet and have the depth to back him up.  The ghosts of Octobers past certainly haunt them, though.  As does a loaded National League.  Can the Brewers finally win their first NL pennant?  Absolutely.  Will they?  It'll be tough, but it's certainly possible.

Dodgers: Everyone knows they're going for history.  No National League team has ever three-peated as World Series champions.  They're equal parts favorites and least favorites.  A third straight title is anything but predetermined, though.  The National League is just that good.  I can easily see the Dodgers losing to the Braves-Phillies winner.  But, they're still the Dodgers.  They still have the most talent and the postseason experience.  So, it wouldn't be a surprise at all if they do it.  It also wouldn't be a surprise if they don't, which would actually be the best thing for Baseball.

Rays: I'm actually kind of rooting for a Milwaukee-Tampa Bay World Series.  MLB and FOX would probably hate having the two small markets, but it would be proof positive that small-market teams can, indeed, win under the current system.  It would show that a salary cap is not "needed."  Anyway, the Rays and Brewers won in very similar ways this season.  That was by being consistent and relentless with a deep pitching staff.  They also remind me a lot of last year's Blue Jays in that you just can't get them out.  Plus, they're unbeatable at home.  Will they be playing World Series games there?  As long as they get by their division rival in the AL East DS, it's certainly possible.

Braves: Don't be surprised if Atlanta ends up in the World Series this season.  Playing that extra series against the Phillies shouldn't even be that big of a deal.  They can absolutely beat the Dodgers.  And the Brewers.  Or they can crash and burn against Philadelphia.  It really does seem like it'll be one or the other.  The Braves will either mash their way to the pennant or get completely shut down and go out with a whimper.

Yankees: Fun fact: Had the Yankees beaten the Orioles in Game 162, they would've been the No. 4 overall seed ahead of the Braves.  Instead, that game was rained out and the Yankees are No. 5 overall (while also No. 4 in the AL).  This isn't last year, when they got their asses kicked by the Blue Jays all season, including the ALDS.  A Division Series matchup with Tampa Bay would be much more even.  Of course, they have to get by the Red Sox first.  But, even if they don't get their sluggers back, this Yankees team has the dominant starting pitching you can ride throughout October.  They need to hit at least a little, though.  And playing two division rivals back-to-back in the first two rounds (again) sure makes it harder.  Not impossible.  But harder.

Padres: No team enters the playoffs hotter than San Diego.  The Padres' best players are playing like it.  And, if they've got the lead at the end, they've got Mason Miller waiting.  That's a team you don't want to face in October.  Getting to Miller could be their biggest problem, though.  Does San Diego really have enough starting pitching after Michael King?  But, then again, playoff baseball is won in the bullpen.  And they've got arguably the best bullpen out there.  Plus, they've got star power.

Cubs: The Chicago Cubs can mash!  Will that be enough to carry them in the playoffs?  Honestly, probably not.  They'll need to get at least some pitching.  And that might be their Achilles heel.  The fact that they stumbled a little down the stretch and lost the chance to play the Wild Card Series at Wrigley.  Instead, their second straight matchup with the Padres will be in San Diego.  The Padres enter the postseason red hot.  That, honestly, might be the Cubs' biggest problem.  If they can get by San Diego, they're a real contender.  Getting by the Padres will be an issue, though.

Phillies: In the first year of the current playoff format, the Phillies went to the World Series as the NL's No. 6 seed.  This season, they're the No. 6 seed again.  And another World Series run isn't completely unfathomable.  They've made the road harder for themselves, that's for sure.  And will their pitching hold up?  If it does, they've got a lineup that can hit with anybody.  Don't forget how good this team was right after Don Mattingly took over as manager.  We've seen what can happen if the Phillies get hot.  If they do, look out!

Red Sox: Boston is the third-best team in the American League.  But, because the two best teams are in their division, that means the Red Sox are relegated to playing a Wild Card Series on the road.  Not just on the road, in Yankee Stadium.  For the second straight year.  Still, I don't think there's anyone who doesn't believe the Red Sox have a real chance of winning this series.  They have left-handed starting pitching, which is what they've used to shut down the Yankees' lineup this season.  How will their bats do against Yankees pitching, though?  That could be the key to the series.  

Guardians: One of the three non-AL East teams is guaranteed to make the ALCS.  And, of the three, Cleveland has the best chance.  The Guardians can actually hold their own with the AL East teams, and they have the starting pitching.  Getting the first-round bye is a big help, too.  Someone has to come out of that side of the bracket.  Why not Cleveland?  They're the most complete of those three teams.  The AL East team will be the overwhelming favorite in the ALCS.  But don't be surprised if the Guardians are their opponent.

White Sox: There was no better story in baseball this season than the White Sox.  This is a franchise that set a record for losses two years ago.  Now they're in the playoffs and Will Venable will almost certainly be the AL Manager of the Year.  Do they have what it takes to win four rounds in the postseason?  Definitely not.  Can they beat the Astros?  Absolutely.  They can beat the Guardians, too.  And wouldn't that ALCS appearance be something?!  It's not that crazy a thought, either.  Especially since they were leading the AL Central for much of the year.

Astros: At least they didn't finish with a losing record!  Houston is the worst full-season playoff team in baseball history, and the AL West was a historically bad division.  You know what, though?  The Astros give off that vibe of the 8-9 football team that gets a home playoff team because it won a bad division, then goes on to beat the 12-5 wild card team.  Even though they were just 81-81 in the regular season, they can absolutely beat the White Sox.  They can absolutely beat Cleveland, too.  That would put them in the ALCS yet again.  (And, we saw an 83-78 Cardinals team win the World Series 20 years ago, so why not the 81-81 Astros?)

While I'd love to see a Milwaukee-Tampa Bay World Series, I'm not sure I see both No. 1 seeds getting there.  In the National League, I actually like third-seeded Atlanta.  Meanwhile, in the AL, I keep going back and forth between the Rays and Yankees.  Whoever wins that series wins the pennant.  As for which one it'll be...beats me!  The Yankees have more starting pitching depth than the Rays, though, so I'm giving them the nod because of Max Fried and Carlos Rodon.  Let's get another Yankees-Braves World Series, 30 years after 1996.

NFL Picks, 2026 Week 3

Man, last week sure brought some QB carnage, didn't it?  Jayden Daniels?  Out.  Caleb Williams?  Out.  Jaxson Dart?  Out.  It's crazy how Week 2 can sometimes make or break a season.  Yet, I have a feeling that's exactly what happened for the Commanders, Bears and Giants last week.  How will they rebound without their starting quarterbacks in Week 3?

Thursday Night: Green Bay (Loss)

Chargers (0-2) at Bills (2-0): Buffalo-The Bills weren't going to lose the first game in their new stadium, and they wanted to make sure everybody knew that immediately.  Their second game at Highmark Stadium should go nearly as well.  The Chargers lost two home games to teams they feel like they should've beaten.  Now they have to travel cross country and face an actual good team for a 1:00 kickoff.  Jim Harbaugh's never been 0-2 before.  He's about to be 0-3.

Panthers (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Carolina-Cleveland's win in Tampa was definitely the most surprising result last week.  The Panthers allowing only a field goal to the Falcons after the Bears scored at will on them in Week 1 was also a surprise.  Which is it?  The Browns certainly don't have an offense that's anywhere near Chicago's caliber.  So, does that mean we get the Week 2 Panthers defense for the second straight game?

Jets (1-1) at Lions (1-1): Detroit-Maybe there is something to this Jets team.  They followed up a Week 1 win in Tennessee with a very good performance in an overtime loss to Green Bay.  (Although, are the Packers even that good?)  The Lions have given up 30 and 41 in their two games, but their offense has at least done its part, scoring 31 in both.  And a game against the Jets (and their former DC Aaron Glenn) at home will give their defense a chance to catch up.

Texans (0-2) at Colts (0-2): Houston-My preseason pick to win the AFC South--Houston--hasn't exactly lived up to that billing so far this season.  Two home games, two losses, albeit to good teams (Buffalo and Cincinnati).  The Colts gave the Chiefs a scare last week and almost pulled that one out, but they're 0-2 just like the Texans.  Houston has won five straight in the series.  Make that six.

Chiefs (2-0) at Dolphins (0-2): Kansas City-After looking so good in Week 1, the Chiefs barely survived and only won on literally the last play of the game against Indianapolis.  Now, they hit the road for the first time to take on a Dolphins team that played two games on the West Coast and looked bad in both of them.  Being at home should only make a slight difference.  The Dolphins aren't good.  The Chiefs are.

Titans (0-2) at Giants (1-1): Giants-This might've been the softest landing the Giants could've gotten for their first game without Dart (who won't play on a Sunday afternoon all season).  All of those quarterback injuries show the value of a quality backup.  The Giants have one in veteran Jamies Winston, who's the starter now.  For one start, at least, the Giants are in good hands.

Bengals (2-0) at Steelers (1-1): Pittsburgh-Cincinnati is a surprise 2-0 team.  It's not just that the Bengals won their first two games.  It's how they won them.  They beat Tampa Bay in Week 1, then absolutely dominated Houston on the road.  The Steelers, meanwhile, got their butts kicked in Foxboro after such a good Week 1 win.  Still, I expect them to bounce back and hand Cincinnati its first loss of the season.

Seahawks (2-0) at Commanders (0-2): Seattle-Washington wasn't good with Jaylen Daniels.  The Commanders won't be good without him.  Especially when compared to Seattle.  The Seahawks have given up 17 total points this season.  So, they're once again riding the defense that carried them to a Super Bowl title last season.  It could be a long day for Marcus Mariota.

Patriots (1-1) at Jaguars (1-1): New England-That was some bounce back!  The Patriots recovered from their season-opening loss in Seattle by dominating Pittsburgh last week.  New England controlled that game from start to finish, and the result was a 20-3 victory.  Jacksonville is pesky, especially at home, so I expect this to be a tough matchup.  In the end, though, I do see the Patriots coming away with the win.

Cardinals (1-1) at 49ers (2-0): San Francisco-Has anybody looked better in the first two games than San Francisco?  The question was how the 49ers would follow up that excellent performance in Melbourne.  Quite well, in fact.  It was against the Dolphins, but still.  Arizona had a really strong Week 1 win, but came down to earth last week against Seattle.  Division games will be tough for the Cardinals since those other three NFC West teams are all among the best in football.

Vikings (2-0) at Buccaneers (0-2): Minnesota-Minnesota has been one of the most impressive teams in the league over the first two weeks.  The Vikings are 2-0 with a pair of division wins already in their pocket, which can be huge when you play in the NFC North.  Now they play a non-division opponent for the first time, a Bucs team that really needs a win after two losses to the AFC North.  They can't afford to go 0-3, even in the NFC South, but I fear that's exactly what'll happen.

Ravens (1-1) vs Cowboys (1-1): Dallas-For its first-ever game in Rio, the NFL picked a good one.  Having Dallas in an international game is rare enough since most teams protect their home game against the Cowboys.  Getting a Dallas-Baltimore matchup in an international game is something that was once thought unfathomable.  Now, we're not only getting it, we're getting it as the 4:25 national late game on CBS.  So, not only are they expanding the international schedule, every network gets one, as well.  As for who'll leave Brazil with a victory, I'm going with Dallas.  The Cowboys looked much more like themselves last week than the Ravens did.

Raiders (2-0) at Saints (1-1): New Orleans-Who would've thought that Raiders-Saints would actually be a worthwhile matchup in Week 3?  Las Vegas has looked really good thru two games.  Maybe Kirk Cousins has something left in the tank, after all.  I'm really surprised about New Orleans, though.  I expected the Saints to be one of the worst teams in football this season.  They've been anything but.  They could even be 2-0 if they'd made that two-point conversion against the Lions.

Rams (1-1) at Broncos (1-1): Rams-It's the third week of the season, and the Rams are already on their third different game day.  And all three in prime time.  In case you couldn't tell, the NFL is going all-in on the Rams this season.  After playing like they didn't care in Australia (with an idiotic travel plan that Sean McVay finally admitted was a mistake), they looked like the team everyone expects them to be against the Giants on Monday night.

Eagles (2-0) at Bears (1-1): Philadelphia-Last year, when these two met on Black Friday, it was the Bears making a statement.  They were no fluke.  They were actually a team to take seriously.  This season's matchup comes much earlier and with Chicago missing its quarterback.  Which Bears team will show up?  The one that was unstoppable against Carolina?  Or the one that couldn't move the ball in the rain against Minnesota?  I'd imagine it'll be something in the middle.  Which isn't enough to beat the Eagles.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 18-15

2026-27 NHL Season Preview (West)

After two consecutive Florida vs. Edmonton Stanley Cup Finals, neither one of them played for the Cup last season.  Instead of the Oilers, it was the Golden Knights, who weren't a very good team for most of the season, but somehow did what they always do and peaked in the playoffs.  (Sidebar, how have the Golden Knights been around for a decade already?)  That clearly pissed off the Oilers, who fired Kris Knoblauch and replaced him with the controversial Mike Babcock.  There's no denying Babcock is a great coach.  But he carries a lot of baggage with him and so many questioned the hire.  It's either a home run for Edmonton or will be a disaster.  I don't think anybody's sure which.

That's one of the big stories in the Western Conference on the cusp of a new NHL season.  Another involves Connor Hellebuyck.  He wants out of Winnipeg, but the Jets haven't been able to figure out a trade yet.  As a result, he was a no-show when training camp started.  How long this situation drags out and where he ultimately ends up could definitely shift the balance of power in the West.  Especially if he ends up in San Jose on one of the most up-and-coming teams in the league.

All those years of being terrible could very well be starting to pay dividends for the Sharks.  Macklin Celebrini is one of the best young players in hockey.  Now they've got a decent amount of talent around him.  Just imagine if they add Hellebuyck.  Then San Jose goes from a borderline playoff team to a team where you'd be shocked if they don't make it.  

Meanwhile, the Central Division is as loaded at the top as it was last year.  Colorado still has talent coming out the wazoo.  Although, the Avalanche's goalie situation is suspect.  A goalie is the only thing holding Minnesota back, too.  That's not the problem in Dallas with Jake Oettinger.  The Stars are just like the Lightning in how consistently good they are.

Those top three teams in the Central are probably good bets to make the playoffs.  So are Vegas and Edmonton.  As for the remaining three Western Conference playoff berths, it's anybody's guess.  From top-to-bottom, the East is a stronger conference.  Last year, the West had playoff teams that were worse than multiple teams that missed out in the East.  I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case again this season.  The West is good at the top.  Not so much in the middle.  And there are far more teams at the bottom.

Which leaves the opportunity for a wide-open race between several teams.  That also makes it possible, if not likely, that we'll see somebody surprising get in.  Will that be Chicago, which will be much improved?  Or Seattle, which has only made the playoffs once in its history?  Or, could we see Winnipeg overcome all of that offseason drama, take advantage of all the talent already on that roster, and make a postseason run behind a new goalie?

With all that in mind, though.  Don't expect to see any changes at the top of the Central Division.  The only question is what order the Avalanche, Wild and Stars will finish in.  And, as we saw last season, winning this division is paramount.  Because the second- and third-place teams face each other in the first round, regardless of how many points they have.  That's a huge advantage for whichever one of the three doesn't have to play both of the other two.

Utah made the playoffs for the first time last season and added some more pieces this year.  The Mammoth could definitely return to the postseason, simply because they have superior talent to some other teams they'll be battling.  And I want to see how Nashville bounces back after a disappointing 2025-26 season.  I was high on the Predators then, and I'm high on them now.  For the division title?  No.  For a wild card spot?  Absolutely.

The Jets have two studs in Mark Scheifele and Josh Morrissey.  They also brought in Stuart Skinner to, presumably, take over as the starter once Hellebuyck is traded.  But how much of an impact will all of that offseason drama have?  St. Louis has Jordan Binnington and not much else.  They traded their best player, Jordan Kyrou, to Washington for practically nothing.  As for the Blackhawks, we're about a year or two away from this team being really good.  It would be surprising if they are this year, however.

In the Pacific, Edmonton is the best team.  If they click with Mike Babcock, who's already said he plans on playing Draisaitl and McDavid on the same line, look out!  That also has potential to go really wrong, too, however.  If it does, look for the Golden Knights to pounce.  Vegas is one of the most consistent teams in the league.  The Knights will find a way to make the playoffs no matter what.  So, their regular season record really isn't even that relevant.

Who'll get the third guaranteed playoff berth out of the Pacific, though?  That's the million dollar question.  It really wouldn't surprise me if it is San Jose.  The Sharks are on the verge of being really good.  Or maybe it'll be the Kings, who loaded up on the free agents.  We didn't get our annual Kings-Oilers playoff series last season.  Maybe we will this year.  Edmonton's replacement first round opponent last season was Anaheim.  I'm not sure the Ducks can make it back, though.  They lost a lot in the offseason.

Seattle is the only other team in the Pacific Division I think has any shot at potentially being in the wild card mix.  Even if I'm not sure the Kraken have enough to get over the hump.  Vancouver and Calgary, meanwhile, are two of the worst teams in the league.  It would be a major surprise to see either the Canucks or Flames come anywhere near the playoffs.

Don't expect this season's Western Conference playoff field to be much different than last year's.  Colorado, Minnesota and Dallas will once again be the top three teams in the Central, in whatever order.  The one minor "surprise" could come in the Pacific, where San Jose will join regulars Edmonton and Vegas.  The Kings should still get in, though, as a wild card.  Along with Nashville.

Goalie play doomed the Avalanche last season, and I think it will doom them again.  It would be easy to pick Edmonton, especially now that they have Frederik Andersen, but I'm going with another team that has the goalie to go along with its offensive talent as the Western Conference champions.  Dallas.  The Stars will do what the Hurricanes did last season and finally get over that Conference Final hump.  They'll also repeat what Carolina did in the following round.  Give me Dallas over Montreal in the Stanley Cup Final, forcing Canada to wait at least another year before lifting the Cup again.

2026-27 NHL Season Preview (East)

With the NHL's new CBA fully going into effect this season, there are some pretty big changes that have the potential to make a real impact.  The biggest of which is the two additional games.  With every team playing 84 games now, they moved the start of the season up a week to the end of September.  It also resulted in a condensed preseason of only four games, in which veterans can play only two.  We'll see how much of a bearing that has, especially early.  Will only two preseason games be enough to get in shape for a season that will (hopefully) run into mid-June.

Speaking of running into mid-June, the Carolina Hurricanes finally broke through and won the Stanley Cup last season.  It was a just reward after being one of the most consistent regular season teams in the league for several years.  And, with most of their major personnel returning, there's no reason to think they won't be in the mix again.  Although, one big name who isn't on the 2026-27 Hurricanes roster is Frederik Andersen, who's now in Edmonton.  Which puts the spotlight on Brandon Bussi as Carolina's new No. 1 goalie.

Andersen wasn't the only goalie on the move this offseason.  In fact, those shakeups represent some of the biggest moves in the offseason.  After winning two Cups in Florida, Sergei Bobrovsky signed with the Maple Leafs.  Is he the missing piece that will finally bring the Cup to Toronto after 60 years?  Replacing him in Florida is the tandem of former Golden Knight Akira Schmid and former Devil Jacob Markstrom.

All of that goalie movement is jarring, especially since these are teams with playoff aspirations.  So, I'm really curious to see if the new goalie was in fact the missing piece or if not having their former netminder turned the position into a major weakness.  There's also something to be said about consistency, which favors teams like Boston (Jeremy Swayman), Montreal (Sam Montambeault), Tampa Bay (Andrei Vasilevskiy) and even the Rangers (Igor Shesterkin).

I'm also really curious to see how last year's playoff newcomers follow up their 2025-26 campaigns.  Ditto about the teams who had become playoff fixtures, but didn't make it last season.  Was 2025-26 the changing of the guard?  Was it the start of something big in places like Montreal and Buffalo?  Or will teams like Toronto and Boston be back?

While I'm on the topic of being back, Alex Ovechkin didn't retire after all!  And, why not come back for another season?  He played in all 82 games last year!  Ovechkin is 71 goals away from 1,000, so I'd actually love to see him play two more years and reach the milestone.  The Capitals made some big moves in the offseason, too, bringing in reinforcements in the form of Jordan Kyrou and Boone Jenner.  They could definitely challenge Carolina for the top spot in the Metropolitan Division.

Another team that I think could make some noise is the Rangers.  It's been two difficult years watching Chris Drury dismantle a President's Trophy-winning team for essentially no reason.  The end of last season was especially painful.  But, they went out and made the massive Pavel Dorofeyev trade, then locked him up long-term.  And they drafted Alberts Smits, who could further solidify the defense in front of Shesterkin.  And just imagine how much worse they would've been last season without an All-World goalie!

It might be a stretch to say the Rangers will go back to being a playoff team.  They may still be a year away from that.  But they'll be in the mix, which is more than we can say about the team last season.  And the Metropolitan Division is wide open behind Carolina (and Washington), so the opportunity to sneak into the field is definitely there.  The Atlantic is so much stronger that I can see five playoff teams coming out of that division and only the required three out of the Met.

In the Met, I have to rank Carolina and Washington as the top two.  The Hurricanes won the Cup last year.  That's easy.  And I think the Capitals' very good offseason will pay dividends.  They're a tick above the rest of the division.  Meanwhile, I'm curious to see what the Flyers have in store for us.  They snuck into the playoffs last year thanks to the format, but still have a huge question mark in goal (where they got former Leaf Joseph Woll in the goalie merry-go-round).

Third place in the Met really could come down to the three teams in the New York Metropolitan area.  Because there isn't really much separating the Rangers, Islanders and Devils.  I could see any or all of them making the playoffs.  Which is more than I can say for Pittsburgh and Columbus.  The Penguins finished second in the division last season, but I just don't see it happening again.  And the Blue Jackets are just bad.

But the Atlantic Division is where all the fun in the East will be.  The Toronto-Boston-Florida-Tampa Bay stranglehold was finally broken last year, with only the Lightning making the playoffs.  And they continue to be the team to beat.  Which they will be as long as Jon Cooper is the coach.  What he's built in Tampa truly is remarkable, and that core group is back, so I don't see that changing anytime soon.

You know who I think could be the team who challenges the Lightning?  Montreal.  The Canadiens made the Eastern Conference Final last season, and that was just the beginning.  Montreal got better and really could be one of the top teams in the league this season.  I see a bounce back in Toronto, too.  The Maple Leafs have too much talent and significantly improved their goalie situation by going from the Woll/Stolarz combo to the Cup winner Bobrovsky.

Now that the Sabres have broken through and ended their playoff drought, you know they'll be hungry for more.  Although, Montreal exposed Buffalo's flaws in that second-round playoff series, and the Sabres need to fix those if they want last season's success to continue.  Boston still has Jeremy Swayman, but this division is just too good right now.  And we all know how good the Panthers can be if they stay healthy.  This season, they've added another Tkachuk brother.  I don't know how good the Senators will be without Brady, but in this division, I don't think they have nearly enough.  Neither does Detroit, especially if Dylan Larkin gets his trade.  (Which reminds me, when and if Connor Hellebuyck gets traded, that can change the fortunes in an instant for whatever team lands him.)

There are so many teams in the Eastern Conference that I think are capable of making the playoffs, it's hard to limit it to the eight.  In the Atlantic, I have Tampa Bay winning the division, with Montreal facing Toronto in the 2-3 series.  Carolina wins the Metro, with Washington meeting the Islanders, who just edge out Philadelphia and the Rangers for the last spot.  And the wild cards both come from the Atlantic.  Buffalo and Florida.  As for who wins (but doesn't touch) the Prince of Wales Trophy, it finally left its Florida retirement last season.  This season, I think it goes back to Canada for the first time in 20 years.  Yeah, I'm that high on Montreal.

NFL Picks, 2026 Week 2

I did NOT have a good week when it comes to picks last week.  Which really is my own fault since I spent so much time saying why one team would/could/should win, then went and picked their opponent.  Although, last week also showed how in Week 1, nobody really knows anything.  Who saw the Cardinals thumping the Chargers coming?  Or how thoroughly the Giants would beat the Cowboys?  And those are just two examples.  Now we move into Week 2, where teams get a reality check after overreacting to whatever happened in Week 1.

Thursday Night: Buffalo (Win)

Panthers (0-1) at Falcons (0-1): Atlanta-Somebody in the NFC South will pick up the division's first win after going a collective 0-4 last week.  Not that many people expected Carolina to beat Chicago, but the Panthers choosing Option B when asked whether or not they wanted to play defense certainly came as a bit of a surprise.  Likewise, were there really that many people expecting the Falcons to beat the Steelers in Pittsburgh?  So, it's not really a shock that they both come in 0-1.  With Atlanta playing at home, let's give them the nod in this one.

Vikings (1-0) at Bears (1-0): Chicago-Is the Bears offense really that good?  Or do the Panthers just have no defense?  And how about that Vikings comeback?!  Every NFC North game this season will be so magnified because of just how close the four teams are.  And these two were both impressive last week.  The Bears slightly more so.  Although, if the Vikings can start the season with two division wins, that will give them an early leg up.

Eagles (1-0) at Titans (0-1): Philadelphia-These two both had predictable results in Week 1.  The Eagles played Washington at home and showed that they're still the superior team in the NFC East.  The Titans had a golden opportunity to start 1-0, but proved there's still a lot of work to do in a loss to the Jets.  This week not only doesn't get any easier, it's significantly more difficult.  Philadelphia should take this one pretty handily (which probably means that, in reality, the Titans will have the lead the entire game).

Steelers (1-0) at Patriots (0-1): Pittsburgh-Here's where we get a team that had some serious questions about itself after Week 1 potentially getting some answers.  It seems like it's been forever and a day since the Patriots' opener.  That gave them a lot of time to think about what happened in Seattle.  Which was either a good or bad thing.  Either way, playing the Steelers shouldn't give them any sort of reassurance.  I think Pittsburgh goes into Foxboro and wins.

Packers (0-1) at Jets (1-0): Green Bay-What is wrong with Green Bay?  In each of their last two games (the playoff game against the Bears, last week against the Vikings), they blew a fourth quarter lead and ended up losing.  Why can't this team finish?  And will it come back to bite them?  As for the Jets, kudos on getting off to a 1-0 start.  Although, let's not get too excited just yet.  They beat the Titans.  The Packers will be a far different test.

Browns (0-1) at Buccaneers (0-1): Tampa Bay-Tampa Bay-Cincinnati was one of the more surprising results for me last week.  I had a lot of confidence in the Bucs and was certain they'd win that matchup.  I was wrong!  They get an AFC North redo in their home opener against the Browns, who got smacked by Jacksonville.  A second straight trip to Florida won't yield a result that's much different than the first.

Saints (0-1) at Ravens (1-0): Baltimore-The Saints were an overtime two-point conversion away from pulling the upset in Detroit to open the season.  Had that happened, it would've sent shockwaves across the NFL.  But, alas, New Orleans is 0-1 just as many would've expected.  This week, they play a Ravens team that impressed on the road in Week 1.  Their home opener should be just as impressive.

Bengals (1-0) at Texans (0-1): Houston-Are we doing this with the Bengals again?  Acting like they're this sudden juggernaut after one game?  Were they the better team against Tampa Bay?  Yes.  But let's not crown them AFC champions just yet!  There are still a number of teams that are significantly stronger.  Like the Texans.  Who should recover just fine from their Week 1 loss to Buffalo.

Jaguars (1-0) at Broncos (0-1): Denver-Last season, at the end of the year, the Jaguars went into Denver and won.  Don't think the Broncos forget that or that they'll take Jacksonville for granted.  Especially not after how each team's Week 1 game went.  The Jaguars looked good, but were playing Cleveland.  The Broncos looked bad, but were playing Kansas City.  How much of that was each of them and how much of that was their opponents?

Raiders (1-0) at Chargers (0-1): Las Vegas-It's not just that the Chargers lost at home to the Cardinals last week.  It's how they lost.  The game was never close!  That's really not a good sign, and it makes this week almost a must-win.  Imagine the Raiders, with a new coach and the No. 1 overall draft pick sitting on the bench instead of starting, following up a Week 1 win by going into SoFi and making it two in a row to start the season.

Commanders (0-1) at Cowboys (0-1): Dallas-As the league continues to lean heavily into the NFC East to start the season, last week's two losers meet in the FOX national window.  In all honesty, neither looked that bad last week.  Both games were close and Washington, especially, could've won.  Still, this is a big game for both.  You never want to start 0-2 with both losses coming in the division.  Yet that's the situation in which the Commanders are likely to find themselves as they fly back to the nation's capital.

Seahawks (1-0) at Cardinals (1-0): Seattle-Arizona was the biggest surprise of Week 1.  Hard stop.  I don't think anyone will dispute that.  Now comes the challenge of following it up against the defending champs.  Seattle didn't play the prettiest game in the opener, but it really reminded you of what they did in the Super Bowl.  Just utter defensive domination.  That translates on the road.

Dolphins (0-1) at 49ers (1-0): San Francisco-Miami's been on the West Coast all week after opening at the Raiders.  The 49ers, of course, had a very long road trip in Week 1, where they were rewarded for actually caring about the fact that the game was in Australia.  Still, you have to wonder if there will be any lingering effects of the travel, especially against a Dolphins team that only had to go from Las Vegas to San Francisco.  There's been enough time that I don't think it should.  Plus, the 49ers are simply the better team.

Colts (0-1) at Chiefs (1-0): Kansas City-If there were any lingering doubts about whether last season was the start of the Chiefs' decline or just a glitch, last week's performance should've answered them.  It was the type of showing we've grown accustomed to seeing from Kansas City.  That was for the Monday night audience.  Now they get a Sunday night audience that includes Cris Collinsworth, who'll get a chance to salivate over Patrick Mahomes for three hours as he does Mahomes things and lifts the Chiefs to 2-0.

Giants (1-0) at Rams (0-1): Rams-What did the Rams teach us last week?  Well, for one, Australia is far.  Also, that leaving essentially the night before and flying thousands of miles to a place with a 17-hour time difference probably isn't the best plan.  It doesn't exactly set you up for optimal performance in a football game.  Although, based on his team's travel plans and his comments afterwards, it seems like Sean McVay had absolutely no interest in playing that game (even though the NFL granted his request to have the 49ers be the opponent).  Fortunately for him, the Rams are back in the comfy confines of SoFi Stadium on Monday night.  And Week 1's no-show took care of that "Can the Rams go undefeated?" thing, so maybe he is an evil genius after all!

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-8
Overall: 9-8

Wednesday Night Football

Last Sunday was a great day for sports on TV.  It was Week 1 in the NFL, with simultaneous doubleheaders on CBS and FOX.  The US Open men's final, featuring American Ben Shelton, was on ABC.  And TNT had the gold medal game of the FIBA Women's Basketball World Cup, a rematch of the 2024 Olympic final between the United States and France.  Of course, all of those events took place at exactly the same time.  (NBC had the World Athletics Ultimate Championships, which only mattered to track & field fans.) 

It was funny to watch those sports media "experts" question why the US Open final and women's basketball game were played during the Week 1 NFL games, as if the networks broadcasting them had any control over when those events are scheduled!  Never mind the fact that the US Open is played at the same time every year and the final is always on an NFL Sunday (either Week 1 or Week 2).  Hell, when the US Open was on CBS, the men's final was scheduled for Sunday at 4:30 so that the NFL could be used as a lead-in!  Last year, ESPN moved the final to ABC and pushed the start time earlier...to 2:00.  The result?  This year's US Open final averaged 3.2 million viewers (due in large part to Shelton).  So, I don't think people had a problem with the fact that it was on at the same time as the early football games.

The women's basketball game, meanwhile, was the result of FIBA's scheduling.  The WNBA suspended its season just before the stretch run to accommodate its players participating in the tournament.  FIBA doesn't care about the NFL schedule.  And shouldn't!  The lack of coordination with the WNBA schedule is the bigger deal and will be addressed moving forward.  This was the last Women's Basketball World Cup played in September.  Future editions will be held later in the year, after the WNBA season is over.

Meanwhile, the NFL really put the "week" into Week 1, which stretched across six days.  They had the Wednesday night Super Bowl rematch between Seattle and New England, which was moved up a day so that the Australia game between the 49ers and Rams could be played on Thursday night/Friday morning (since they couldn't play that on Friday/Saturday due to the restrictions in the Sports Broadcasting Act).  And, of course, a full slate of Sunday afternoon games before Giants-Cowboys on Sunday night and Chiefs-Broncos in the Monday night game.

While an unusual day, this wasn't the first time the NFL season opened on a Wednesday.  In 2008, they played on a Wednesday night because Barack Obama's acceptance speech of his first Presidential nomination at the Democratic National Convention was on Thursday.  So, it wasn't unprecedented.  Although, the Wednesday night didn't seem to be as popular.  It was the lowest-rated Kickoff game since 2022, drawing "only" 25 million viewers (on network TV...on a Wednesday night) despite being a Super Bowl rematch.

That rating has led to some of those same "experts" theorizing that the Wednesday night opener was a failed experiment that the NFL will never do again.  On the contrary.  I think the Wednesday night opener will not only return next season, it will become a semi-regular thing moving forward.  For multiple reasons.  For one, the NFL isn't shy about its plans for world domination.  For another, they can only play on Friday in Week 1 if Labor Day is between September 1-3.  So, if Labor Day is on September 4, 5, 6 or 7, the NFL opener will be on Wednesday.

Roger Goodell has made it clear that the NFL intends to continue expanding its international slate.  They also have a multi-year deal for games in Australia (sorry, Rams).  And, Netflix just inked a package of games that includes a Week 1 international game every season.  That international game (likely in Australia) will be on Friday when it can.  When it can't, it'll have to be on Thursday.  Which means the Kickoff game will have to move to Wednesday.

I'm not saying this because I necessarily think playing the Kickoff game on Wednesday is a good idea (although, Week 1 is certainly the easiest time to make a Wednesday game work).  I'm saying this because it's a reality of the calendar.  The Sports Broadcasting Act of 1961 dictates that the NFL can't play on Friday or Saturday nights between the second weekend in September and the second weekend in December.  Since the season starts after Labor Day, that means they can only play on Friday if Sept. 1 is Saturday, Sunday or Monday.

Then think about the logistics of where the NFL is committed to playing international games.  There's literally no other time when you can go to Australia without it being incredibly disruptive for one or both teams.  As much as the Rams might like to pretend it's not, Australia's pretty far!  It takes a while to get there and for your body to get acclimated.  It'll be the same thing if the NFL ever decides to play an international game in Japan or China.

So, as long as there continues to be an international game in Week 1 (which there will be as long as Netflix is contracted to carry it) and the NFL continues holding those international games in far-away places, they'll be on Thursday or Friday night.  They'll put it on Friday night when/if they can.  But when Friday's not an option, Thursday's the only day that is.  Then, in order to both keep the exclusivity of the Kickoff Game and keep with the tradition of the Super Bowl champion opening their defense in that game, Wednesday night is the only logical place for that to go.  Is it weird?  Yes.  But it's not going anywhere.

To say that the Wednesday night opener was a "failed experiment" is a gross exaggeration.  For one, it wasn't an experiment.  It was the NFL starting something new that will become a semi-regular thing in future years.  Labor Day isn't early enough for them to play a Friday night game in Week 1 again until 2029.  So, we'll see a Wednesday night Kickoff Game for at least the next two seasons.

Now, when/if the NFL inevitably expands the schedule to 18 games, this could become an entirely moot point.  They'll have two options for when to put the 18th game.  They could put it at the end and push the Super Bowl back even further into February (which would put it on President's Day Weekend every year).  Or, they could leave the Super Bowl date when it is and go back to playing on Labor Day Weekend (which seems less likely).  If they were to do that, playing on Friday night in Week 1 wouldn't be a problem and they could have the Kickoff Game on Thursday every year no matter what.

There's something else worth noting here.  The NFL initially said that either the Patriots-Seahawks game or the Rams-49ers game would be on Wednesday.  They opted to put the Kickoff Game on Wednesday to preserve that traditional opener for the Super Bowl champion.  If they'd done it the other way, people would've been up in arms about that, too!  So, they couldn't win either way.  It was either having the opener not involve the Super Bowl champion or having the Super Bowl champion play on Wednesday (then get a week and a half off before Week 2).

Really, it's all up to the calendar.  The NFL may not necessarily want to open the season on a Wednesday, but will when the calendar calls for it.  Because the Week 1 international game isn't going anywhere.  And, with Thanksgiving Eve now a part of the schedule, as well, NFL football on Wednesdays will become more and more of a regular thing moving forward.  Whether it's a "good" idea or not, it's happening regardless.

Africa's Turn to Shine

World Athletics has announced the hosts of the 2029 and 2031 World Championships.  And that announcement was historic.  The 2029 World Championships will be historic.  They're headed to Nairobi, the first time World Athletics' signature event will take place in Africa.  Something that was a long time coming!

There have been numerous World Athletics events held in Africa over the years.  This year's World Relays, in fact, were in Botswana.  There was a very successful World Cross Country Championships in Uganda in 2017.  Nairobi itself has already hosted the World U18 and World U20 Championships (separately).  But the marquee competition, the World Outdoor Championships, have never been in Africa.  A glaring omission that needed to be rectified.

For a long time, the United States was the glaring omission.  That's why World Athletics awarded the 2021 World Championships to Eugene, Oregon without the traditional bid process.  They wanted a Worlds in the U.S. and Eugene was the only logical place in the U.S. to do it (and had a strong bid), so they made it happen.  Once those delayed Worlds finally took place in 2026, Africa became the obvious next place they had to go.

Just as Eugene was the obvious choice for the first World Championships in the U.S., Nairobi was the obvious choice for the first World Championships in Africa.  Nairobi has already shown itself capable, not just through those age group Championships, but because of the Kip Keino Classic, an annual stop on the World Athletics Continental Tour.  Plus, they have the stadium.  Most significantly, Kenya's history at the World Championships.  So, all the pieces were there for Nairobi to be selected.

Kenya obviously has a strong history of distance running, and it's the most successful nation at Worlds behind the United States.  Some of the biggest names in the history of the sport, both active and retired, are Kenyan.  David Rudisha, Eliud Kipchoge, Faith Kipyegon, Vivian Cheruiyot, to name just a few.  And they've expanded beyond just distance running in recent years, too, from Julius Yego (World Champion in the javelin) to Ferdinand Ominyala (the 10th-fastest man all-time in the 100 meters).  So, they're not just a distance running nation anymore.  They're a track & field nation.

The initial thought was that Nairobi would be awarded the 2025 World Championships.  Those ended up going to Tokyo, mostly as a make-good after the 2020 Olympics were delayed by a year and held without spectators.  And not only did fans finally get a chance to actually experience world-class track & field at Tokyo's Olympic Stadium, every session of the World Championships was sold out!  So, there's really no questioning World Athletics' decision to make that call.  

With next year's World Championships set for Beijing, that's not just back-to-back Worlds in Asia, it's back-to-back not in Europe.  Track & field is bigger than Europe than anywhere else, and there's never been three World Championships in a row outside of Europe.  Which led to the (not unreasonable) belief that 2029 would go to one of the very strong European bids from London, Munich or Rome.  They wouldn't award two World Championships at once and not give Nairobi either, especially after going to Africa became a priority.  I was just expecting it to be 2031.  So, Nairobi getting 2029 was a pleasant surprise.

As I already noted, Nairobi was the most logical choice among potential African host cities.  There's an annual Diamond League stop in Rabat, but Morocco doesn't have anything close to the history that Kenya does.  Another thing that worked in Nairobi's favor is that the stadium is in the midst of being upgraded for the 2027 Africa Cup of Nations, which Kenya is co-hosting.  Once those renovations are complete, the stadium will hold 55,000 for the World Championships.

And, make no mistake, it isn't just Kenya that'll be hosting.  It's Africa that will be!  The 2029 World Championships will be a celebration for the entire continent, which will finally be getting its chance to shine on the global stage.  It's been a long time coming for all of them.  And you know there will be plenty of fans coming from neighboring countries losing their minds for their athletes just as much as the Kenyan fans will for theirs.  If this year's World Relays are any indication, it'll be a wild celebration.

This isn't just a big move for World Athletics, it's potentially a legacy-defining one for Seb Coe.  He's been responsible for a lot of things (both good and bad) during his tenure as World Athletics President.  Bringing the World Outdoor Championships to new places will certainly go down as one of the biggest.  They went to the Middle East for the first time (Doha 2019).  They went to the United States for the first time (Oregon 2022).  Now they're headed to Africa for the first time (Nairobi 2029).  Don't think that isn't significant.

At the same time Nairobi was awarded 2029, Munich was chosen as the host for the 2031 World Championships.  It'll mark then third time the event is held in Germany (in a third different city after Stuttgart 1993 and Berlin 2009), and the first World Championships in Europe since 2023 in Budapest.  It also sets up a string where five consecutive major global championships will take place on different continents (Beijing 2027, Los Angeles 2028, Nairobi 2029, Munich 2031, Brisbane 2032).  That's a pretty cool thing not many sports can boast!  (2033 World Championships in South America to make it 6-for-6?)

Going to Africa is historic simply because of the fact it's never happened before.  That was the case with the 2010 World Cup.  That will be the case when the Olympics finally go to Africa for the first time.  And now that the first time is out of the way, it won't be newsworthy when it happens again.  And I mean that in a good way.  Because it shouldn't be newsworthy.  If it's the best, most capable host, that's where it should be, regardless of country or continent.

But the first one is different.  And I can't think of a better place to be Africa's first than Nairobi.  Not just because of Kenya's history at the World Championships.  Not just because they have the infrastructure in place.  Not just because they've already shown they're capable.  Because of all those things put together.  Nairobi, and Kenya, deserves it!

So, was Nairobi the right choice for the 2029 World Championships?  Absolutely!  Even though it felt inevitable they'd get one eventually, now that they've actually been selected, that makes it real.  The World Athletics Championships are finally headed to Africa.  Now it's time for the Olympics to follow.

Solving a Problem, Creating a New One

When Bill Belichick wasn't voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on the first ballot, you knew changes to the election process were on the horizon.  What we couldn't have expected was that they would completely overhaul the entire thing.  Fewer electors, back to an in-person meeting, no automatic finalists, categories being combined and separated.  All of which were part of a "2 1/2-year review process" that they hope will improve and strengthen the selection process.  I'm not sure it'll have the desired effect, though.  Because it feels like this new voting process might be even less transparent!

Let's start with the most obvious elephant in the room.  They're eliminating the Senior category entirely.  Instead, all players will be considered together regardless of how long they've been retired.  They still become eligible after five years, but will now simply stay in that pool instead of moving into a separate Senior pool after they've been on the ballot for 15 years.  Not only do I think this is a terrible move, I think it's an incredibly unnecessary one.

Over the last two years, a grand total of two Senior candidates were elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame.  Sterling Sharpe in 2025 and Roger Craig this year.  And they both got in because they were the leading vote-getter in the combined Senior/Coach/Contributor vote.  There were three Senior candidates each year.  Four of those six finalists didn't get in.  And who knows when they'll get another chance to be considered?!  Being grouped with all the Modern Era players certainly won't help their case.

The whole reason Senior players were separated from the Modern Era candidates in the first place is because of how difficult it is to compare them.  Look at baseball.  Their equivalent of the "Senior" category is split into three separate pools of candidates, each with its own separate election.  In football, they were always mixed in with the Modern Era finalists at the end, but only after a subcommittee determined the Senior finalist(s).  Not anymore.  

In the past, the Senior candidates were almost always rubber-stamped once they made it out of the subcommittee.  Once they were combined with the Coaches and Contributors, it was no longer a guarantee.  In fact, it made it even harder for the Seniors to get in.  Hence only two of six Senior finalists being selected over the past two elections.  Moving forward, by not having the Seniors in a separate category, it'll become even more difficult, if not impossible!

For that reason, I don't like the decision to drop the Senior category.  It's not an apples-to-apples comparison between the Seniors and the Modern Era candidates.  There's not even a guarantee that somebody who's been retired more than 20 years will be a finalist.  I'm not saying that the Senior finalist needed to automatically be elected in the previous selection process.  But they were at least getting a fairer shake when compared only against players of their own era.  I have no problem with separating the Seniors from the Coaches and Contributors.  I just wish they still had their own pool.

It's not like things will be much easier for the Coaches and Contributors, either.  Those subcommittees still exist and will each name one finalist, who will join with the 13 player finalists to get a final group of 15.  That brings it back to the old way when everybody was considered together.  Which they went away from because the Coaches and Contributors were almost always missing out because the voters went for the players instead.  Why should we think it'll be any different now?

One change I do support is the elimination of automatic finalists.  But only to an extent.  During the past two election cycles, players who made the final cut but weren't elected, moved right to final round of voting the next year.  That will no longer be the case.  Although, I would've liked to have seen that provision grandfathered in instead of implemented immediately.  Willie Anderson, Terrell Suggs and Marshal Yanda would've been the automatic finalists for 2027 (I think Suggs is a virtual lock to be elected next year).  It would've made much more sense to let those three retain their spots, then have no carryovers in 2028.

I'm also not thrilled with the stipulation that the new classes will be between three and seven members.  Last year, there were only four inductees.  This year, there were five.  The Pro Football Hall of Fame used to regularly have seven- or eight-member classes, which some (namely Deion Sanders) felt was too big.  So they overcorrected and made it too hard to get in.  Even for the Modern Era candidates.  If this new process gets classes back in the six- or seven-member range, I might be able to get on board.

There are two new provisions that I do like, however.  The first is the return to an in-person voting meeting.  They used to meet during Super Bowl week every year before moving to a virtual meeting during COVID.  Even after COVID ended, they stuck with the virtual meeting for reasons I don't quite understand.  The virtual meeting is not only preferred, it's better.  Face-to-face conversation and debate makes for a more thoughtful selection.  I'm glad they're going back to it.

Likewise, I like the reduction of the number of selectors from 50 to 28.  Those 28 (of which only 25 will be active voters, with the other three serving as alternates) will also have no affiliation to individual teams.  The Hall of Fame found that having the electors each linked to an individual team led to the perception of biases (whether intentional or not).  They also eliminated having each candidate presented by one of the selection committee members (which made it obvious how he was voting on that player).  Now, the candidates will all be presented by the same person, who's not a member of the selection committee.

While the Hall of Fame is still determining which voters will retain their spots, I think it's probably safe to say Tony Dungy won't keep his.  He didn't do himself any favors with how noncommittal he was when asked questions about Belichick.  And that reduction isn't necessarily making it easier to get in since they're keeping the 80 percent threshold.  That means they need a "Yes" vote from 20 of the 25 voters.  So, unless the voters are in virtual agreement before making their selections, we could still end up with smaller classes.  (We also don't even know how many people each voter can vote for, which can obviously have an impact on the results.)

Which makes me very interested to see how this new voting process will play out.  Will having everybody lumped together into one ballot be better or worse?  I think the changes to the makeup of the committee and how they'll meet are good and well-intentioned, but how much of a positive impact on the actual voting process will they have?  Because, let's face it, the Pro Football Hall of Fame's voting process is flawed.  It was flawed before, and it's still flawed after these changes.  But at least they're trying to improve, and I give them credit for that.

And, no matter what, there's going to be controversy over who does or doesn't get into the Pro Football Hall of Fame regardless.  Will it be as egregious as Bill Belichick not getting in on the first ballot?  Probably not.  But there will definitely be something that causes them to reevaluate and revamp the process again in a few years.  And maybe then they'll once again realize that Seniors and Modern Era candidates need to be considered separately.  Because comparing somebody who played in the 1970s with somebody who played in the 2010s is just stupid!