Now that the World Series is over and the Braves have been crowned champions, we turn our attention to baseball's Hot Stove season. And this winter's Hot Stove season should be one of the wildest ever. Because there are a lot of big name free agents who'll be available, but there's only so much money to go around. The list is seriously ridiculous!
Throw in the fact that the CBA expires on December 1 and a lockout seems likely, and you've got even more uncertainty. Nobody's gonna sign until the new CBA is done. And who knows when that's gonna be? So, it really could end up being a case of who strikes first. Both for the players and the teams.
There's another reason why they have to wait for the CBA, too, and it's an important one. The universal DH. After taking it for a test run during the pandemic-shortened 2020 season, most people agree that it's a near-certainty the universal DH will be back to stay in 2022. Which means there will be 15 additional DH jobs that need to be filled...and NL teams will need to know that, since it'll obviously influence their free agent decisions.
For the purposes of this exercise, I'm gonna assume the universal DH is a go for next season. I'm also gonna assume that several of the "available" free agents aren't going anywhere. Because there's no chance Freddie Freeman's leaving Atlanta, and it's impossible to even think about Clayton Kershaw in another uniform. I think Anthony Rizzo will return to the Yankees, too. As for the other free agents, here's my best guess as to where some of them land...
Carlos Correa, Angels: You know the Angels are gonna throw money at somebody. Likely one of the plethora of All-Star shortstops available. They have a real need at that position and should move to fill it with their latest high-priced free agent signee. The guy who's been tormenting them in the division for so long figures to be a good bet. Now, if they only realize they need to get some pitching, too...
Corey Seager, Yankees: Seager returning to LA is still a realistic possibility, but it seems more likely the Dodgers will move Trea Turner to short and have Gavin Lux play second. And if Seager were to move, switching coasts from one marquee franchise to another make a whole lot of sense. He'd look awfully good in pinstripes! Especially since the Yankees don't seem willing to commit to Gleyber Torres at short.
Max Scherzer, Nationals: Max is gonna have a Nationals hat on his plaque in Cooperstown, and I think he reunites with the franchise after just a few months away. After all, he was the Face of the Nationals until his brief stint with the Dodgers. Dealing him at the deadline made sense, seeing as Washington was in full-blown sell mode. Part of the reason for that was to free up money for free agency. So, expect them to be big players for more than a few names.
Trevor Story, Nationals: Washington's shortstop choice should likely come down to Story and Baez. they may make a run for Correa, too, but I don't think there's any question he'll be the first shortstop off the board. And Seager will be second. Which will leave everyone else in the shortstop market looking for their second- and third-choices. Trevor Story isn't a bad second or third choice, though!
Starling Marte, Nationals: Can the reigning MLB stolen base champ make it 3-for-3 for the Nationals? After playing in Pittsburgh, Miami and Oakland, Marte stands to finally cash in as a free agent. And he figures to have plenty of suitors. But, if the Nationals are willing to invest in a rebuild the way I think they might be, a leadoff hitting center fielder is something they'd likely be very interested in.
Nick Castellanos, Cubs: Castellanos joining the free agency fun was definitely a surprise. And he immediately jumps to the top of the list of available outfielders. I'm not sure how much the Cubs will be willing to spend this offseason, but you've gotta figure they'll at least try to get somebody worthwhile. And Castellanos would be such a great fit at Wrigley!
Nelson Cruz, White Sox: Chicago's other team doesn't need to do much. They'll be huge favorites to repeat in the AL Central even if they stand pat. But they won't. And they shouldn't. Because adding Nelson Cruz's bat to the middle of their lineup makes it that much more scary. Although, Cruz and Kyle Schwarber will be the biggest beneficiaries of the universal DH. Because the market for them will double.
Javier Baez, Guardians: Man, it's weird to write that! Cleveland knew they weren't gonna have the money to keep Francisco Lindor, so they traded him to the Mets last winter while they could still get something for him. So how do I think they'll have the money to sign Baez? Because he won't be as expensive as Lindor! The Guardians also know they're not that far away from competing, so shelling out a little bit on a position of need and giving Jose Ramirez and Franmil Reyes some protection in the lineup isn't that big of a stretch.
Kris Bryant, Mets: I'll be honest. I have absolutely no idea where Kris Bryant's going to end up. Or what position he'll end up playing. Will he sign as a third baseman or as an outfielder? When he went to the Giants, it was partially because of his desire to be on the West Coast. Will that also be the case with his free agency? If so, that limits his options. Money talks too, though. And the Mets will be willing to shell out a lot of it for one of the best all-around players in the game.
Marcus Semien, Astros: Assuming they lose Correa, the Astros will likely grab one of the other free agent shortstops as his replacement. Again, this could come down to who's willing to move first and who's left when the wheel stops spinning. Semien played second base in Toronto last season, but he came up as a shortstop, and I can easily see him signing with Houston and swinging back to the left side of the infield.
Wow, that was a lot! And, other than Scherzer, I didn't even get a chance to talk about any of the pitchers. That market's nearly as rich on that front, with guys like Robbie Ray, Noah Syndergaard, Kevin Gausman and Marcus Stroman available. None of them are front of the rotation starters like Scherzer, but they're all arms any team would love to have.
Let's not forget about trades, either. Because I have a feeling there will be a lot of those. Especially if the Yankees re-sign Rizzo and/or sign a free agent shortstop, making Luke Voit and Gleyber Torres expendable. To name just one team and two guys. So, as I said (and you can see), this offseason is gonna be wild!
Thursday, November 4, 2021
Wild Winter Ahead
Sunday, October 31, 2021
Picking Football Games, Week 8
Last week, because stupid Geno Smith decided to get sacked twice instead of throwing one measly completion for like three yards, I ended up losing my fantasy game by half a point! And I was only playing Geno Smith because it was the Chargers' bye week, so I couldn't use Justin Herbert! But don't worry, I'm not mad at all about it!
At least I correctly predicted that the Saints would win that game. And that the Packers would beat the Cardinals on Thursday night (although, who possibly could've seen that last-second interception coming?). So at least I've got my picks going for me. And I've actually been surprising myself this season with how often I've gone with my gut and ended up being right. Not always (see: the Giants last week), but a lot. Let's see if it continues after I already got the big one for this week...
Thursday Night: Green Bay (Win)
Panthers (3-4) at Falcons (3-3): Carolina-Will Atlanta fans have double the reason to celebrate on Halloween night? Frankly, I think the Braves' chances of closing out the World Series are better than the Falcons' chances here. Yes, they come in on a two-game winning streak. But those games were against the Jets and Dolphins! Granted, the Panthers looked like complete trash last week against the Giants. There's something I like about them in this matchup, though.
Dolphins (1-6) at Bills (4-2): Buffalo-When they met in Miami in Week 2, the Bills pitched a 35-0 shutout. That was the first of six straight losses for the Dolphins, who actually beat New England in their opener. And, frankly, things are just getting worse for Brian Flores' crew. They came back from London, had the game against the Falcons won, and Atlanta kicked that last-second field goal. It doesn't get any easier with a trip to Buffalo (although they do host Houston next week).
49ers (2-4) at Bears (3-4): Chicago-This one is actually in the 1:00 window, so you don't have to hear me complain about the NFL choosing it as a national game. They both badly need a win if they want to keep pace in divisions that are looking like they could become runaways. Even if the divisions are out of reach, they're both in the mix for the third wild card, though. And a 4-4 record at midseason would keep the Bears very much in the thick of things.
Steelers (3-3) at Browns (4-3): Pittsburgh-Oh, the crazy AFC North! The Steelers are in last place, but only a game and a half behind the first-place Bengals. The Browns, meanwhile, are currently holding the third wild card. That's the last time these two rivals met. In January in the wild card game. Neither team can forget what happened, even if the Steelers might want to. Pittsburgh will have revenge on its mind. That's why I'm going with the Steelers.
Eagles (2-5) at Lions (0-7): Philadelphia-Do I think the Lions will go 0-17? No I do not. Do I think this is one of their best chances to get a win? Yes I do. So why am I picking the Eagles then? I'm not entirely sure. I just think this isn't the week for Detroit. The Lions will go into their bye at 0-8, then come out of it and shock somebody for win No. 1. It just won't be the Eagles.
Titans (5-2) at Colts (3-4): Tennessee-If the Colts have any hopes at all of winning the AFC South, they need to at least split with the Titans this season. That's what happened last year, when they both won on the road (and it was the Colts' loss to Jacksonville that gave Tennessee the division). Both teams are different this year, obviously, and frankly, the Titans are just better. They'll go to 6-2 and take a three-game stranglehold on the division.
Bengals (5-2) at Jets (1-5): Cincinnati-Ladies and gentlemen, the Cincinnati Bengals are for real! That was as big a statement as they could possibly make last week and it has them, at least for now, sitting atop the AFC North. So this isn't just your regular "who cares?" Bengals-Jets game. Cincinnati's relevant, which means they can't sleep on a game like this one. It actually matters. They need to show up and play like it.
Rams (6-1) at Texans (1-6): Rams-Green Bay did the Rams a huge favor on Thursday night. There's obviously still a lot of season left and Arizona still currently holds the head-to-head tiebreaker. But they know that the division is suddenly back up for grabs. They also know that they need to seize the opportunity that they're being presented this week and take care of a Texans team that they're significantly better than.
Patriots (3-4) at Chargers (4-2): Chargers-Some of the talk about how great the Chargers are definitely quieted down after they got thumped by Baltimore before their bye week. And you know they're eager to get back on the field after having two whole weeks to think about that clunker. I'm curious to see how they respond. And how they deal with a Patriots team that ran up the score on the Jets last week to the tune of 54-13. You don't have Brady anymore, guys! Save some of the touchdowns for other games!
Jaguars (1-5) at Seahawks (2-5): Seattle-The Seahawks do have a few things going for them right now. Seattle is so excited about the Kraken that people aren't paying as much attention to the fact that they suck as they otherwise might. They're also not playing on prime time for the first time in a month. Those three straight prime time games were great exposure...but they went 0-3 in them! Now it's back to Sunday afternoon, where they can hopefully go unnoticed. Finally, they're playing Jacksonville. The Jaguars finally stopped their 20-game losing streak. Now it's time for them to start another one.
Washington (2-5) at Broncos (3-4): Denver-Remember when Denver started the season 3-0? That was when they played the Giants, Jets and Jaguars all in a row. Then they had a four-game stretch where they played Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas and Cleveland and lost them all. Which tells you Denver is beating the teams it should beat. Washington falls into the category of a team the Broncos should beat. Especially in Denver.
Buccaneers (6-1) at Saints (4-2): New Orleans-It doesn't have quite the same gusto this season with Brees retired, but Bucs-Saints is still a matchup worthy of its billing. Especially after last season's three meetings, when New Orleans swept Tampa in the regular season (embarrassing the Bucs on that Sunday night), only to have Tampa Bay win the game that mattered most in the Divisional Playoffs. This season, the shoe's on the other foot. The Saints are doing the chasing. They'll either make things a lot closer with a win here or start making their travel plans for Wild Card Weekend with a loss.
Cowboys (5-1) at Vikings (3-3): Dallas-There's a big asterisk hanging over the Sunday night affair, and that's Dak Prescott. As we've seen, the Cowboys are a much better team with their quarterback than they are without him. So, Dak's health could be a huge factor in this game. If he doesn't play or does but isn't 100 percent, don't be surprised to see the Vikings pull the upset. If Dak's his usual self, though, Dallas goes to 6-1. Also, I've gotta say, you had a chance to have the Raiders and their scary fans play on Halloween night and you didn't take it? Come on NFL!
Giants (2-5) at Chiefs (3-4): Kansas City-Maybe Kansas City just isn't as good anymore. That's really the only explanation I can think of as to why they still haven't clicked yet. And teams can't have learned that much from watching the game tape of the Super Bowl no matter how many times they watch it! The Giants are also better than their 2-5 record, as evidence by what they did to Carolina last week. Whenever the Chiefs are down, though, they take it out on their next opponent. Especially if it's somebody they know they should beat. Like the Giants.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-4
Overall: 74-34
Friday, October 29, 2021
Keep Them Separate
Back in March, the NCAA received a lot of criticism (and rightfully so) for the extreme differences in the conditions of the weight room (among other things) at the Men's Final Four and Women's Final Four. That led the NCAA to do a thorough review of all its sports/championships and determine what changes should be implemented. The committee has made its recommendations, and, frankly, some of them don't make much sense.
The biggest change they recommended was looking into holding the Men's and Women's Final Fours together in the same city. The argument is that this would increase the exposure for the women's event. In reality, however, the exact opposite would happen. The Women's Final Four would end up being completely overshadowed by the men's.
Women's basketball is one of the highest-profile NCAA sports. They need to take advantage of that and allow the Women's Final Four to be a showcase of the sport. Combining it with the Men's Final Four may sound great in theory, but doing so wouldn't give the women the showcase they deserve. Instead, they'd be treated as the warm-up act. The undercard before the main event, playing on Friday and Sunday before the men go on Saturday and Monday.
Would there be a slight attendance bump for the women by combining the Final Fours? Perhaps. But are they gonna fill a 70,000-seat NFL stadium? Probably not. So, the NCAA would either need to curtain off sections or deal with the unpleasant aesthetic of thousands of empty seats. Either one isn't a good look. Especially when the women would sell out a smaller arena.
That may sound like a knock on the women's game, but it's not intended to be. In fact, it speaks volumes to the popularity of the women's game that the Women's Final Four is regularly sold out. Which clearly shows the event is capable of being a showcase all on its own. They don't need the men to draw a crowd. That's another reason not to combine the events.
Combining the Men's and Women's Final Fours would also take away one huge advantage the women have over the men. Because the men play in a dome, they're limited to a rotation of the same 8-10 cities. The Women's Final Four, however, can be held in pretty much any city. While they sometimes play in a dome, as well (this year's Women's Final Four was at the Alamodome in San Antonio, for example), they can play in pretty much any city that has an NBA team. And even some that don't (Columbus, Nashville and Tampa have all hosted in recent years). Why not take advantage of that and continue moving the Women's Final Four around the country in a way that the men's can't?
While it wouldn't work in basketball, I'm not opposed to the idea of a combined championship in some other sports. In sports like track & field, cross country and swimming, separating the NCAA Championships wouldn't make any sense! But they also combined the rescheduled NCAA Soccer Championships in April-May very successfully. I wouldn't be surprised to see a combined College Cup again in the future. I'd also like to see what a combined Men's and Women's Lacrosse Final Four would look like. I think that it could work very well in lacrosse, especially if they had a Fan Fest as a part of the weekend.
Which brings me to my other big issue with the committee's recommendations. They suggested dropping the gender identifiers in the name of individual NCAA Championships. Which, again, is just dumb. And I'm not sure what it would accomplish, either. If you drop the "Men's" and "Women's" identifiers, how are people supposed to know which one is which?
This is another point that was brought up among the Men's/Women's Final Four issues in March. The argument then was, "Why is it 'Women's Final Four,' when the men's is just 'Final Four'?" I agree with that point to a degree, but the solution shouldn't be to drop "Women's." It should be to add "Men's." Which would put basketball in line with every other sport where the NCAA sponsors championships on both the men's and women's side.
Those gender identifiers are necessary to differentiate the men's and women's championships. They're different events. They need to be recognized and treated as such. The mere suggestion that gender identifiers need to be dropped would, once again, have the opposite effect. Instead of distinguishing two distinct tournaments that crown two different champions, the lines would be blurred, leading to nothing but confusion. How does that help anybody?
I'm also not sure where the idea of the "men's" and "women's" labels being a bad thing or somehow offensive came from, either. Nobody has a problem with them in the Olympics, where they make it a point to distinguish between men's, women's and mixed events. Not only that, the IOC requires that any new sport have both men's and women's events (at least), and they're very proud of the fact that Paris 2024 will be the first Olympics to have an equal number of men's and women's events.
Speaking of the Olympics, another suggestion regarding NCAA Championships was made a few weeks ago that I think is a great idea. The USOPC and the different U.S. sport federations have broached the subject of partnering with the NCAA in staging the championships. The rationale is solid. A majority of the U.S. Olympic team comes from the NCAA ranks, so it makes complete sense for the national federation to be invested in and want to be involved with the NCAA Championships.
Think of the possibilities that would create, too. The first thing that comes to mind is the idea of NCAA Championships at National Team Training Centers. That would give the NCAA Championships competitors access to the same world-class facilities and amenities as the members of the U.S. National Team. That's an opportunity they might never get otherwise. Likewise, it would increase their exposure to National Team coaches and staff. And the co-branding opportunities would be a win-win for both the NCAA and the USOPC.
A change like that would be good and welcome. But not every change is good. Changes such as having the Men's and Women's Final Fours in the same city or dropping gender identifiers in the name of NCAA Championships wouldn't be. Those would be changes for the sake of change. And they would probably hurt more than they would help.
Tuesday, October 26, 2021
Not the World Series We Expected
I saw a ridiculous article lamenting that "the two best teams aren't in the World Series," to which I say, "So what?" It's not the first time that the "best" teams didn't make it, and it won't be the last. I also saw articles complaining that the Braves had home field in the NLCS even though the Dodgers won 106 games. Well, get over it! That's the format, which is designed that way intentionally so that the division winner isn't at a disadvantage. Everyone knows that's the deal. It's part of the reason winning the division is so important. So, sorry, it wasn't "unfair" to the Dodgers that the Braves had home field. (BTW, the Dodgers would've had home field in the World Series had they won since that is based on wins.)
This isn't the World Series we expected, but it's the one we got. The Braves had the fewest wins of any playoff team. Nobody gave them a chance against the Dodgers in the NLCS. Yet here they are. Atlanta got hot, LA had too many injuries, and the Braves advanced to their first World Series in 22 years.
After Game 3 of the ALCS, everyone was acting like the series was already over. The Red Sox had scored approximately 35 runs in the last two games and there was "no way" the Astros' pitching would be able to contain the Boston offense. Then the Red Sox stopped hitting, Yordan Alvarez started hitting, and Houston won its third pennant in five seasons.
So, regardless of what some people may have expected or wanted, it's Braves-Astros. It is a surprise. There's no doubt about that. Atlanta had to completely remake its outfield at the All*Star Break, and Houston had no starting pitching to speak of for much of the season. Neither one was favored in the LCS. Now they head into a World Series that they both have very realistic thoughts about winning.
As with any World Series (or championship of any sort), there are plenty of ridiculous storylines. There's all the people who think the Braves reaching the World Series is some sort of karmic justice for MLB moving the All*Star Game, which was originally supposed to be in Atlanta. Which is utter nonsense!
Likewise, there are those who see this as some sort of "redemption" for the Astros after the cheating scandal. If anything, it makes the cheating scandal look even dumber in comparison. Because they were good enough to win without cheating. (And, seeing as the players were never punished, the resentment isn't going away anytime soon.)
There are plenty of feel-good stories surrounding this World Series, though. Dusty Baker is finally back in the Fall Classic for the first time since 2002. It would be great to see him get a ring after such a long and distinguished managerial career. The same can also be said for Braves manager Brian Snitker, a baseball lifer who's spent decades in the organization. (Snitker's son is a coach for the Astros, so the Snitker family is guaranteed a ring no matter what.) And, in an era where analytics-driven young managers are all the rage, we have the matchup of the two oldest World Series managers in history. That should tell you something.
Then there's Freddie Freeman. It'll be so great to see him in a World Series! He's been the Face of the Braves since Chipper Jones retired, as well as one of the best players in baseball over the past decade. He deserves to play in a World Series, and I'm glad he'll finally get to! It's also cool to see the Braves back in the World Series in the year we lost Hank Aaron. What a great way to honor his legacy!
Joc Pederson is also worth a mention. He won a ring last year with the Dodgers and has a chance to become just the ninth player in history to win consecutive World Series with different teams. Joc's already a bit of a cult hero because of his ridiculous production in the postseason. This can just add to his legendary status.
Of course, Pederson may not even be in the Atlanta lineup for Game 1, when Framber Valdez will be on the mound for Houston after the best start by any pitcher in either LCS. But Jorge Soler will be in there instead. Soler just came back from having COVID and Pederson took his place in right field during his absence. But, with the first two games in Houston, Atlanta will get a chance to play them both. Unless Pederson sits against Valdez, in which case Soler can play right and Johan Camargo can DH.
Houston, on the other hand, has the typical AL problem. What are they gonna do about the outfield when the series shifts to Atlanta? How do they keep both Alvarez's and Brantley's bats in the lineup? Would they consider putting Alvarez in right and moving Tucker to center, putting two guys out of position in an unfamiliar ballpark (that presumably doesn't have easily-accessible garbage cans)?
And how's the pitching gonna hold up? One of the biggest keys of Houston's ALCS comeback was their much-improved starting pitching over the final three games, especially Games 5 and 6. The starters were not good in the first three games, which led to the bullpen having to get a lot of outs. That's generally a recipe for disaster in a seven-game series (which both of these teams know firsthand; their bullpens were exhausted after the seven-games-in-seven-days LCSes last year). But, it actually had the reverse effect. Since the starters were so bad the first time around, they were fresher and the Red Sox didn't have the at-bats against them in the second start.
Atlanta's NLCS pitching strategy, meanwhile, was just to parade one lefty after another out of the bullpen to counteract the Dodgers' left-handed hitting. I can see them doing the same thing again. Expect Matzek and Minter to face Alvarez, Brantley and Tucker quite a few times over the next nine days. They'll need to get something out of their right-handers, though. Otherwise Altuve, Correa and Bregman will tee-off.
Overall, though, I think Atlanta has the slight advantage. And it's because of the starting pitching. Charlie Morton, Max Fried and Ian Anderson aren't Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz, but they're battle-tested and, frankly, I have more confidence in them than I do in Framber Valdez and Luis Garcia (who were brilliant in the ALCS).
Don't be surprised if the series goes the distance, though. After all, the Astros have played 14 World Series games over their past two trips. Houston may be weary of a Game 7, however. Because, after that long winning streak by home teams in Game 7's, the road team has won the last four. Which the Astros know well, having won at Dodger Stadium in 2017 and lost at home to Washington in 2019.
It's a little superstitious, but I see that streak reaching five straight. I'm saying Braves in seven. (Although, Atlanta has its own eight-game World Series losing streak to worry about first. I think it gets to 10 before ending in Game 3, which be the first World Series game not played in Texas since Game 5 of 2019, ending another 10-game string.)
Sunday, October 24, 2021
Picking Football Games, Week 7
Earlier this week, I saw a graphic on Facebook that broke down the NFL's "tiers" in 2021. I don't remember exactly where it had everyone in the power rankings, but I do remember the Lions having their own category: "You suck, but we like you because we feel bad for you." And they were still ranked above the Dolphins, who also had their own category: "You just lost to a team on a 20-game losing streak."
Those rankings will obviously change several times over the course of the season, but this week they should stay pretty solid. This is the annoying six-team bye week, and that includes three of the good teams (Dallas, Buffalo, Chargers). And, aside from Ravens-Bengals and Chiefs-Titans, the other good teams aren't really in much danger of losing this week, either. Obviously, they have to play the games and an upset is always possible. But the slate of games this week, frankly, isn't overly appealing.
Thursday Night: Cleveland (Win)
Washington (2-4) at Packers (5-1): Green Bay-I think it's safe to say that there are several very good teams in the NFC. The Green Bay Packers are definitely on that list. Washington, meanwhile, is not. The Packers' winning streak is going to end eventually, but it won't be this week. Not against a bad team at Lambeau. More importantly, as one of the good teams, they can't afford a loss to one of the bad teams.
Chiefs (3-3) at Titans (4-2): Kansas City-Whenever the Chiefs are backed into a corner, they show up and play their best game of the season. That happened again last week, when they whooped up on Washington. Now they need to get out of this loop where they get back to .500, then lose. And this would be a good place to start. Because they've already lost to Baltimore and Buffalo (and the Chargers), so they need a win to have any chance of holding any tiebreakers come playoff time.
Falcons (2-3) at Dolphins (1-5): Miami-Both of these teams last played in London. The Falcons beat the Jets, while the Dolphins helped the Jaguars snap their 20-game losing streak. Oddly, they don't have a bye week upon their return, which means it's right back in the saddle. Although, I think that'll actually help them. Get down to business and get back on the right track by beating Atlanta.
Jets (1-4) at Patriots (2-4): New England-New England has been competitive in every game this season, but the Patriots' only wins are against the Jets and Texans, not exactly a who's who of the NFL's best! Fortunately, they play the Jets again this week. That should at least get their record to a more respectable 3-4. With a tough stretch of games following this one, they need that to have any playoff hopes.
Panthers (3-3) at Giants (1-5): Carolina-There are a lot of people who think the Giants have a good chance to win this game. I'm one of them. However, I've also seen the Giants find so many different ways to lose through the first six weeks. The Panthers, meanwhile, view this one as a game they should win. Which I think they will. On the Giants' specialty...a last-second field goal!
Bengals (4-2) at Ravens (5-1): Baltimore-Is it possible that these are the two best teams in the AFC? It's sure starting to look that way! The Ravens have beaten both the Chiefs and the Chargers, and I don't think anyone will argue that Cincinnati's 4-2 record isn't legit. So this isn't just the biggest game of the week, it might be the most important. And it'll further advance Baltimore's standing as the top team in the AFC.
Eagles (2-4) at Raiders (4-2): Las Vegas-The Raiders were clearly able to put the Jon Gruden situation behind them. That was an inspired win over the Broncos last week, and they got the added benefit of the Chargers losing, which means they're once again tied for first. With the Chargers off this week, they can take sole possession of first by beating the Eagles.
Lions (0-6) at Rams (5-1): Rams-At least Sean McVay finally admitted that the way they handled the Jared Goff-Matthew Stafford trade was a mess! Just imagine what would've happened if he'd never ended up playing golf at the same place as Stafford over the summer! Goff deserved better, and he'll hopefully get a nice reaction as he returns to SoFi Stadium. Unfortunately, the greeting he gets from the Rams defense won't be as welcoming.
Texans (1-5) at Cardinals (6-0): Arizona-Another reunion in store this week is J.J. Watt and the Texans. Of course, this one's a little different since he's not actually returning to Houston. Competitively, it should go about as well as the Stafford-Rams reunion. The Texans aren't a good team. The Cardinals are.
Bears (3-3) at Buccaneers (5-1): Tampa Bay-Can people please get off this "the Bears are actually good" bandwagon? Because they're not. They're mediocre at best. Whether they're "good" or not kinda depends on the week and their opponent. This won't be one of those weeks and Tampa Bay won't be one of those opponents.
Colts (2-4) at 49ers (2-3): Indianapolis-Why is this game on Sunday night? For some reason, the NFL thinks people want to watch the Colts play the 49ers. I'm not entirely sure why. Because it's not like either one is particularly worth watching. They easily could've flexed it out for Bengals-Ravens, yet chose not to, so Colts-49ers it is! I'll go with Indy to win, but, honestly, who cares?!
Saints (3-2) at Seahawks (2-4): New Orleans-Seattle's hoping that its third straight prime time game won't become its third straight prime time loss. Although, even though they lost last week, Geno Smith more than held his own, so they'll be fine without Russell Wilson. It's almost a must-win for the Seahawks, who see their season slipping away with each loss (not to mention each Cardinals and Rams win). That's exactly what the well-rested Saints will hand them, though. Their third straight prime time loss.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-3
Overall: 65-30
Saturday, October 23, 2021
Iconic Theme Music
When it was announced that the NHL was returning to ESPN this season, I think people were more excited about the music than anything else. And with good reason. ESPN's hockey theme is great and instantly recognizable. But is it the best sports TV theme music of all time? Not even close! It isn't even the best hockey theme music. So, where does it fall then? Let's find out. (Like most of my top 10 lists, this ended up being a top 15. Just go with it!)
12. Seoul 1988: It pains me to put this one so low. Mainly because I love it so much. I think it's even better than NBC's current Olympic theme (which was also composed by John Williams). But, since this one was only used for one Olympics, I can't justify ranking it any higher, either.
10. This Week In Baseball: Much like "Wide World of Sports," "This Week In Baseball" is more than just a classic sports program. It was an institution. Mel Allen signing off into that incredible music rolling over the closing credits. Just hearing the music brings me back to my childhood.
9. CBS Olympic Theme: Some people actually prefer the theme music that CBS used for the three Winter Olympics in the 90s to any of the NBC themes. It was written by a woman named Tamara Kline and may be appreciated more today than it was then.
Thursday, October 21, 2021
Sports to Add In LA
As a part of its Agenda 2020 reforms a few years ago, the IOC started allowing host cities to add sports and events to the Olympics that will be featured in their Games only without necessarily becoming permanent editions. Tokyo was the first Olympics where this was in place, which is why we saw the return of baseball and softball, as well as skateboarding, surfing, sport climbing and karate. Japan obviously chose well. They collected a ton of medals in those sports, including gold in both baseball and softball.
In Paris, skateboarding, surfing and sport climbing will return, while "breaking" (breakdancing) will make its debut. We'll see it in the Winter Olympics for the first time at the 2026 Milan-Cortina Games, where ski mountaineering will be added to the program. And the campaigning has already started for both the LA and Brisbane Games, even though they're seven and 11 years away!
Now, I'm lukewarm about the whole adding sports just for one Olympics thing. I don't think the in and out is helpful either to those sports or to the Olympic Movement. Sports shouldn't have to constantly be fighting for Olympic status. They should either be Olympic sports or not. It shouldn't depend on where a given Olympics is taking place.
But that's what the system is right now, so that's the system we'll have to live with. And it seems likely that it'll still be in place for LA. How many sports will be added for LA though? And which ones? Let's take a look at some possibilities:
Baseball/Softball: This is Exhibit A of why the new in-and-out (shout out to the Southern California burger chain) approach is stupid. Because baseball and softball were out of the Olympics for 13 years, only to make a one Olympic cameo before being taking right back off the program. For what figures to be one Olympics where they're out before once again going right back on.
Everyone knows that baseball and softball will be back in LA. And, considering how successful Australia has been in each internationally, we'll likely see them in Brisbane, as well. So that'll be three out of four. And, unlike the oft-criticized decision to use a single venue in Tokyo, they'll play them in separate facilities in LA. Baseball can be at Dodger Stadium and softball can be at UCLA.
Skateboarding: Another obvious "yes." Seeing as skateboarding started in the United States and many of the top skaters are American, there's no way skatekboarding won't be included in LA. Which would be its third Olympics in a row, effectively making skateboarding a quasi-permanent addition.
Surfing: Unlike Paris and its asinine plan to have surfing 10,000 miles away in Tahiti (they do know that the South of France is a lot closer to Paris, right?), LA can hold its surfing competition on one of their many world famous beaches. Malibu, Hermosa Beach, Santa Monica, take your pick. Again, just like baseball/softball and skateboarding, I'd be shocked if surfing's not included in both the 2028 and 2032 Olympics.
Sport Climbing: Frankly, I think they should just rip the band-aid off and make sport climbing a permanent part of the Olympic program! Because its debut in Tokyo was great, and it's not going anywhere! In fact, I see sport climbing being one of the added sports at every Summer Games for the foreseeable future.
So, that covers four of the five sports that were added for Tokyo (baseball and softball are a package deal since they have the same international federation). What about karate? Yeah, I'd say that one's probably a "no." Most people thought it would be a one-and-done in Tokyo (another reason why doing it this way is stupid).
I have no idea what they'll do about breaking. The LA program will likely be finalized before the Paris Games, so they can't use that as a test run. I'm leaning towards "no," but then again, breakdancing was invented in the U.S. and they're trying to appeal to younger fans with some of these more urban sports. So, as dumb as I may find Olympic "breaking," I wouldn't be completely surprised to see it in the LA Games.
Then there's E "sports," which will be featured in an international multi-sport competition for the first time at next year's Asian Games. The IOC has expressed an interest in collaborating with E "sports," but has also shown no indication gaming will becoming a medal event at the Olympics anytime soon. While it seems possible (likely even) further down the road, 2028 may be too soon.
There are two other sports that I think could be very interesting additions--one team sport and one individual sport. Whether they ultimately decide to expand the program beyond just the four sports we saw in Tokyo or not, they should both get some serious consideration for the LA Games. (And, no, football isn't one of them.)
Lacrosse: Of the two, lacrosse seems less likely. It's a team sport, so that would be an awful lot of athletes to add for just two medal events. And it's not like they can play every day or even every other day, so I'm not sure how well it would work logistically. But, lacrosse is a very popular sport in the United States, especially at the high school and college level. That's the biggest thing it has working for it.
Roller Sports: Roller sports, on the other hand, would make for a very easy addition to the Olympics. Frankly, I think roller sports should probably be in the Olympics already. There are actually three disciplines--speed skating, figure skating and inline hockey--so narrowing down which events to include would be tricky. But roller sports are already included in the Pan Am Games and World Games, so the international participation is clearly there. And I think they'd be a popular addition to the Olympic program.
It seems unlikely that both lacrosse and roller sports will be added to the 2028 Olympics, so if I had to pick one, I'd say roller sports would have the better shot. But, I feel confident in saying that we haven't seen the last of Olympic baseball/softball, surfing, skateboarding or sport climbing. We'll see three of them in Paris. And I'd expect to see them all in LA (and Brisbane).