2023 Picks, Week 6

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

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

Thursday Night: Kansas City (Win)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LA's New Sports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2023 Picks, Week 5

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

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

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

Thursday Night: Washington (Loss)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 Countries, 3 Continents, 1 Dumb Idea

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MLB Playoff Preview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2023 Picks, Week 4

Week 4 begins in London, the first of five international games this year (and the first of back-to-back London games for the Jaguars, who are the "home" team this week and the "road" team next week).  It ends, for the second time this season, with two prime time games at MetLife Stadium.  That's right, for the second time in the first four weeks, the Giants and Jets are both playing prime time home games.  You know how many Sunday afternoon games there have been at MetLife, a stadium that's home to two teams, this season?  A grand total of one!

Thursday Night: Green Bay (Loss)

Falcons (2-1) vs Jaguars (1-2): Jacksonville-For some reason, the Jaguars just can't beat Houston.  It really is weird.  Especially since they're a better team than the Texans now.  And, as a result of their loss last week, they head to London at 1-2 instead of 2-1.  I wonder how much of an advantage it'll be next week that it'll be their second straight game in London (or if it'll be an advantage at all).  That's a big one against Buffalo.  They can't go into it 1-3.

Dolphins (3-0) at Bills (2-1): Buffalo-It was basically their homecoming game.  That's the only way to describe it.  The Dolphins' home opener was the equivalent of scheduling a guarantee game against an FCS team.  Not only that, they're also the only 3-0 team in the AFC.  Now they go to Buffalo, where the Bills face the team that beat the Broncos the week before for the third time in a row.  Buffalo won the first two.  They should make it three and knock Miami from the ranks of the undefeated.

Broncos (0-3) at Bears (0-3): Denver-There are four remaining winless teams in the NFL.  In a quirky little coincidence, they're all playing each other this week.  Which means at least two of them have to not lose!  In the first of those games, Denver visits Chicago.  I don't know how you give up 70 points in an NFL game, but the Broncos somehow managed to figure it out last week.  One thing I can guarantee is that they won't allow 70 again this week.  It'll take the Bears weeks to score 70 points.  They aren't good.

Ravens (2-1) at Browns (2-1): Baltimore-If you're the Ravens, how can you not be disappointed with last week?  They probably went into it thinking Indy at home would be an easy win.  Instead, they were lucky just to go to overtime, where the Colts won on a field goal.  That result, coupled with the Browns' and Steelers' wins mean we have a three-way tie in the AFC North.  Which adds importance to this one.  Can Cleveland keep up their hot start or will Baltimore bounce back and assert itself as the top team in the division?

Bengals (1-2) at Titans (1-2): Tennessee-While it may sound a little extreme to say last Monday's game was a "must win" for the Bengals, it was pretty close.  An 0-3 start would've been pretty hard to come back from.  The Titans, meanwhile, laid an egg in Cleveland.  They're better than that performance.  They'll show that this week and send the Bengals to 1-3.

Rams (1-2) at Colts (2-1): Indianapolis-In an AFC South that is seemingly reverting to its old self, the Colts sit alone in first place entering October.  I can't say Indianapolis has done anything super great, but they have gone on the road and won two in a row after losing their season opener.  Now they get a Rams team that's better than its record, but is playing a second straight road game with a long flight after a Monday nighter.  That, more than anything else, is why I'm taking the Colts.

Buccaneers (2-1) at Saints (2-1): New Orleans-During the three years Tom Brady played in Tampa, the Saints were the one team that had his number.  Kinda like the Dolphins when he was in New England.  Anyway, this matchup no longer features either Brees or Brady, and it won't feature Derek Carr, either, as Jamies Winston will be under center for New Orleans.  He's not a bad backup to have, and I think he'll do just fine.  In fact, I think he'll lead the Saints to a victory that puts them in sole possession of first place.

Commanders (2-1) at Eagles (3-0): Philadelphia-People have been talking about San Francisco and Miami and Dallas and Kansas City.  I think they've been forgetting Philadelphia.  But the Eagles are one of only three 3-0 teams in the NFL and showing no signs of Super Bowl hangover.  The crazy thing is I don't think they've played their best yet, either.  And they're still 3-0.  Make that 4-0.

Vikings (0-3) at Panthers (0-3): Carolina-The other game between winless teams is the Vikings and Panthers.  It's not entirely surprising that the law of averages has caught up to Minnesota this season after they won so many close games last year.  I fear another close loss might be in store for them again this week.  Carolina gets Bryce Young back after he missed the Seahawk game with an ankle injury, and the No. 1 pick should be rewarded with his first NFL win.

Steelers (2-1) at Texans (1-2): Pittsburgh-Mike Tomlin really doesn't get enough credit sometimes.  Every time people get down on the Steelers, he shows us why we shouldn't.  Pittsburgh lost its opener, then earned back-to-back primetime wins to sit in a three-way tie atop the AFC North.  Now they go to Houston for a matchup with a very beatable Texans team.  Of course, I also said that about the Jaguars last week, so they'd better be careful and come ready to play.

Raiders (1-2) at Chargers (1-2): Chargers-Jimmy Garoppolo will not play for the Raiders.  That's actually big since the winner of this one will keep pace with the Chiefs.  Yes, it's Week 4 and we're already talking about Kansas City pulling away in the division.  The Chargers got a boost of confidence by beating Minnesota last week.  They needed it.  Just like the need a win here to get to 2-2 before their bye.  Because they've got Dallas, Kansas City after the bye and they could be looking at 1-5 in the face if they don't win this one.

Patriots (1-2) at Cowboys (2-1): Dallas-Just when people started putting the Cowboys at the top of their NFL power rankings, they go and lay an egg in Arizona.  Are the Cowboys a better team than the Cardinals?  Yes.  Did they play like it last week?  No.  Will they take it out on the Patriots in Ezekiel Elliot's return?  Probably.  The Patriots got the win last week because of one big play.  If not for that, they easily could be 0-3 right now.

Cardinals (1-2) at 49ers (3-0): San Francisco-San Francisco has scored exactly 30 points in each of its first three games this season.  For a team that's known for its defense, that's a pretty good (and consistent) offensive output.  They've got a Sunday night game against Dallas next week that they should go into with a 4-0 record.  The real question is whether they'll score an even 30 again.

Chiefs (2-1) at Jets (1-2): Kansas City-I attended an event with the Sunday Night Football crew a few days ago where they (jokingly...I think) set the over-under on the number of times they'll cut to Taylor Swift at 22.  (But, sure, she and Travis Kelce aren't dating.)  Is it bad that I'm tempted to take the over?  Collinsworth said this has a chance to be a really compelling matchup between the Chiefs offense and the Jets defense.  Or, it won't be.  Another shocking fact about this game is that it'll be the first time Patrick Mahomes has ever played at MetLife Stadium.  How is that even possible?

Seahawks (2-1) at Giants (1-2): Giants-After a West Coast trip that saw them lose two key players, the Giants return home for a Monday nighter against a third straight NFC West opponent--the Seahawks.  It'll be Geno Smith's return to MetLife Stadium with a Seattle team that's put up 37 points in each of its last two games, both wins.  Can the Giants defense stop them?  They're gonna need to.  Because this is a winnable game.  It's also their only home game in this brutal five-game stretch.  And, in a division with the Eagles and Cowboys, they need to grab every win they can.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 31-18