Picking Football Games, Week 4

Homecoming games are typically played sometime in October for high school and college football teams.  This week, the NFL is getting in on the act.  Because they've got the two biggest returns of the season both being played on the same day.  I'm, of course, talking about Andy Reid's return to Philadelphia with the Chiefs and the most-anticipated NFL game over the past two seasons...Brady's return to New England.

Thursday Night: Cincinnati (Win)

Washington (1-2) at Falcons (1-2): Atlanta-If you're looking for a win, just play the Giants.  That's what both of these teams did.  Now they play each other, which will move one of them to .500.  Frankly, neither team good.  But 2-2 still looks a lot better than 1-3.  I really have no way of quantifying which team is less bad than the other in what should be a terrible game, so I'm going with the Falcons at home.

Texans (1-2) at Bills (2-1): Buffalo-It seems like forever between games for the teams that play on Thursday night, doesn't it?  The Texans' loss to Carolina was so long ago that I forgot they only scored nine points!  So, yeah, if their offense is that anemic at home against the Panthers, I don't have high hopes for them against the Bills defense in Buffalo.

Lions (0-3) at Bears (1-2): Chicago-Lions fans are frustrated.  So frustrated that they booed the owner last week.  Detroit then went out and actually would've beaten the Ravens if not for Justin Tucker's insane 66-yard field goal!  But it was still a loss, leaving the Lions as one of two winless teams in the NFC.  That first win could come this week, but likely will not.  No matter who's playing quarterback for the Bears.

Panthers (3-0) at Cowboys (2-1): Dallas-How long have I been saying that if the Dallas Cowboys are healthy, they aren't just the best team in the NFC East, they're one of the best in the entire NFC?!  Monday night was a prime example of that.  If the Cowboys play like that every week, very few teams will beat them.  That includes the Panthers, who have a nice win over the Saints, but aren't as good as their record implies.

Colts (0-3) at Dolphins (1-2): Miami-Miami went into New England and won, then played the Bills at home and got shut out, then went to Las Vegas and lost in overtime.  Why is it that they've played well in their two road games but were terrible at home?  Was it just because of how good the Bills were in Week 2?  I guess we'll find out when they take on a Colts team they should beat.

Browns (2-1) at Vikings (1-2): Cleveland-As I said after Week 1, the stat about the Browns never winning their opener is interesting, but it's not really indicative of anything about the 2021 team.  All it said was that they played a good team on the road.  Their second road game of the season is against a Vikings team that looked so different last week than they had in their previous two games.  This game should tell us a lot about both teams.

Giants (0-3) at Saints (2-1): New Orleans-At long last, the Saints get to play at the Superdome!  It's been a long three weeks on the road for New Orleans, but they survived it just fine.  Sure, they'd like to be 3-0 instead of 2-1, but that game in Carolina can easily be chalked up as an anomaly because of everything they had to deal with that week.  As for the Giants, they're running out of new ways to lose by a field goal, but I'm sure they'll find one.

Titans (2-1) at Jets (0-3): Tennessee-The Jets have been outscored 51-6 over the past two weeks.  That really tells you all you need to know.  Don't expect it to get any better against the Titans, either.  Maybe they'll actually score a touchdown this week.  Even if they do, it probably won't matter.  Not against a Titans team that went into Seattle and won.

Chiefs (1-2) at Eagles (1-2): Kansas City-First things first, all the best to Andy Reid, and hopefully he's OK after his health scare.  But now it's back to the business at hand, and his return to Philadelphia is close to a must-win game for the Chiefs.  Kansas City has lost two in a row for the first time in forever and is in sole possession of last place in the AFC West for the first time in nearly as long.  So, yeah, this is an important one.  Especially since I don't see the Raiders or Chargers losing much.

Cardinals (3-0) at Rams (3-0): Rams-Finally, the NFC West teams start playing each other!  Which means we'll finally see one of them lose!  I don't say that because of any ill will towards the Cardinals or Rams.  I just think it's time to start letting that division settle itself out.  We're still a long way from the finish line, of course, but this is a big one nonetheless.  The first of two big ones at SoFi Stadium this week.  And, as good as I think the Cardinals are, they almost lost to Jacksonville last week.  Thus, I'm picking the Rams.

Seahawks (1-2) at 49ers (2-1): Seattle-All that "what's wrong with the Chiefs" talk has helped shield the Seahawks from criticism.  But Seattle is in the exact same boat.  Lost two straight, alone in last place in a stacked division.  Except the situation may be even more pressing for the Seahawks since (a) the NFC West is stronger than the AFC West and (b) they're playing a division game this week.  They know the urgency.  Thankfully, Seattle is distracted by the Mariners and Kraken right now, but a 1-3 last-place Seahawks team would get their attention real quick.

Ravens (2-1) at Broncos (3-0): Baltimore-So many people are talking about Denver as if they're suddenly this force simply because they're undefeated.  Yes, they're 3-0, and they deserve all the props for that.  But, let's be real here, they should be 3-0.  They've played the Giants, Jaguars and Jets.  So let's not get carried away about the Broncos.  Let's see how they do against the Ravens, the first actual good opponent on their schedule, before we declare them Super Bowl Champions.

Steelers (1-2) at Packers (2-1): Green Bay-Is it possible the Steelers still have a hangover from last season?  Because I don't know how else to explain their last two weeks.  Or maybe they're just not as good as we all thought.  Green Bay's done the exact opposite.  The Packers got their butts kicked in Week 1, but have rebounded with two solid wins, which I think proves Aaron Rodgers' theory that they simply had a bad game against the Saints.  They've since resumed their rightful place atop the NFC North.

Buccaneers (2-1) at Patriots (1-2): Tampa Bay-Of course they were gonna set it up so that Brady could set the record on Sunday Night Football in his return to Foxboro!  All week, we've heard all kinds of details about how things in New England were actually pretty messy behind the scenes for quite a while.  It was just shielded by all the winning.  So maybe it shouldn't have been a surprise that Brady left.  I'd expect he'll get a nice ovation, then do what he did in Foxboro for the better part of 20 years.  Win.

Raiders (3-0) at Chargers (2-1): Las Vegas-I'm not sure why the Raiders are already getting their second Monday night game in Week 4.  But it sure worked out that this matchup with the Chargers is effectively for first place in the AFC West.  They're both potential playoff teams, so this is a big one.  Especially since the Chargers already have a win over Kansas City.  I've just been so impressed by the Raiders and how they've won three different ways in three games, though.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-4
Overall: 32-17

All On the Rose Bowl

That whole Texas-and-Oklahoma-to-the-SEC thing was due in part to the fact that the general expectation is that the College Football Playoff will eventually be expanded beyond the current four teams, perhaps to as many as 12.  There wouldn't be automatic qualifiers or a limit on the number of teams from a conference, either, so the SEC was positioning itself to scoop up as many bids as possible.  I've even seen some hypothetical 12-team playoffs that have as much as half the field coming from the SEC.

For most of the summer, people just assumed the expansion was inevitable.  It was just a matter of figuring out the logistics.  Would the first round games be on campus?  Or would it entirely take place using existing bowls?  And, if there are AQs, which conferences get one?  The Power 5 plus the best Group of 5 champion, with six at-larges?

Except all of those plans have hit a pretty major snag.  The Rose Bowl.  And if they can't get the Rose Bowl's buy-in, it'll complicate any CFP expansion plans.  Because it would be nearly impossible to do it without the Rose Bowl.  Both practically and logistically.

The Rose Bowl is known as the "Granddaddy of Them All" for a reason, and it's pretty protective of some of its traditions.  Two traditions in particular--the Big Ten vs. Pac-12 matchup and the 2:00 Pacific time kickoff.  And they don't seem willing to budge on either one just to accommodate an expanded College Football Playoff.

Now, scheduling around the kickoff time is actually fairly easy.  They've already been scheduling the CFP semifinals around it for years.  The Rose Bowl is played at 2:00 Pacific on New Year's Day whether it's a semifinal or not.  Likewise, the Sugar Bowl is played at 7:30 Central on New Year's Day whether it's a semifinal or not.  So, those two are paired and they're the two semifinals or, in the two years they aren't, the semifinals are played on the Saturday before.  Either way, their start time is the same each season.

Scheduling around the Rose Bowl's start time probably wouldn't be much of an issue in the expanded format, either.  Depending on how they set it up, they could simply make the Rose Bowl and Sugar Bowl the permanent semifinals.  Although, that would make the other four bowls that are currently in the CFP semifinal rotation relegated to permanent quarterfinals (and held a week earlier than they are now), so I'm sure they wouldn't be too happy about it.

However, the Rose Bowl doesn't seem willing to budge on its traditional Big Ten vs. Pac-12 matchup, which would create all sorts of problems.  I know what you're thinking: "The Rose Bowl isn't always Pac-12 vs. Big Ten."  That's true.  The most recent Rose Bowl, for example, was Alabama vs. Notre Dame.  That, however, was a CFP semifinal. 

When the Rose Bowl is a CFP semifinal, the matchup is determined by the CFP rankings, so they have no control over who plays in the game.  (In fact, the Rose Bowl hasn't featured a Big Ten OR Pac-12 team the last two times it's been a semifinal.)  In the years that it's not a part of the College Football Playoff, however, the Rose Bowl reverts to the traditional matchup (with a few exceptions), sometimes even taking the second-place team just to preserve it.  That's a trade-off they're willing to make since it lets them both keep their traditional matchup and be part of the playoff.

It wouldn't be possible to guarantee either of those things if the Rose Bowl were to be a part of an expanded CFP, though.  The matchups would presumably be seeded, and it's unlikely that two Power 5 conference champions would end up facing each other in that scenario.  Likewise, if the Rose Bowl was made a permanent semifinal to preserve its date and time, you'd have no idea who's playing in the game that year.  It might not be either conference.

Even before the Rose Bowl hiccup, I was wondering how the proposed 12-team format would work anyway.  For the National Championship Game to be at its usual time (the Monday night after the NFL season ends), the semifinals would also have to remain when they currently are (either New Year's Day or the weekend before).  So, the quarterfinals would have to be a week before that, which means Christmas week.  And that would put the first-round games in mid-December, which is finals. 

Likewise, are they really serious about having first-round games on campus?  That's fine for the SEC teams, but can you imagine a playoff game at Ohio State or Notre Dame in December?  I know it would be a tremendous home field advantage, which is the entire point, but you're also taking a tremendous risk with the weather there.

Qualifying is another question.  Right now, with four teams, you're guaranteed to have one Power 5 conference champion left out.  I like the idea of giving an auto bid to each of the five, as well as the best conference champion from the Group of 5.  But, if you do that and only expand to eight teams, that only leaves two at-large bids.  If you go to 12, that's six auto-bids and six at-larges.  So it works in that sense, but then you have byes to worry about.

Personally, I think expanding to eight makes much more sense than expanding to 12.  It's less drastic, much cleaner, and only adds one additional round.  Plus, you could just make the other four New Year's Six games the quarterfinals every year, so they'd keep their same level of importance.

I'm not sure any of it's actually gonna happen, though.  Not if the Rose Bowl doesn't get on board.  And right now, that doesn't seem likely.  So it might all be for naught and idea of College Football Playoff expansion will remain just that.  An idea.

Trout, Ohtani, and Still No Playoffs

Mike Trout is arguably the best player in baseball.  He has been for years.  Shohei Ohtani is the biggest phenomenon in baseball, doing incredible things that we've never seen before and are likely to never see again.  They both play for the same team.  That team is in a major market.  Yet that team is not good.

It really is incredible if you think about it. Trout's first full season was 2012.  In those nine seasons (not including this year), he's finished in the top-two in MVP voting seven times (and in 2017, the Altuve/Judge year, he was third).  However, despite having the best player in the game in his prime, the Angels have made the playoffs a grand total of once in Trout's career...in 2014, when they were swept in the Division Series by the Royals!

While there have been times when Trout's been forced to be a one-man band, it's not like the Angels haven't tried to be good.  They play in a major market and aren't afraid to spend.  It's just that a lot of their free agent signings haven't worked, whether it be Albert Pujols or Josh Hamilton or Anthony Rendon or Justin Upton.

When they ended up winning the Ohtani Sweepstakes, it looked like things may finally turn around.  He was one of the biggest curiosities in baseball history, and every team wanted in on the phenomenon.  A guy who can hit and pitch!  And do them both well!  And he chose to come to the Angels!  He and Trout together should be unstoppable, right?  Right?!

I, for one, was skeptical about whether the Ohtani thing will work long-term or not.  I still am.  But this season, they've gotten everything they could've hoped for when they signed him and then some.  Trout hasn't played since May, yet an Angel is STILL likely to win AL MVP.

Ohtani did his thing again on Sunday, striking out 10 and not walking anybody while giving up just one run over seven innings.  It was 1-1 when he came out, only for the bullpen to give up a four-spot in the eighth in another Angels loss.  That dropped them to 74-82, guaranteeing their sixth consecutive losing season.  As if that wasn't bad enough, though, it's what Ohtani said after the game that should really have Angels fans concerned.

He was asked if he wants to stay with the Angels long-term and was noncommittal.  All Ohtani, who isn't eligible for free agency until after the 2023 season, would say was that he "really likes the team" and that he "loves the fans" and "loves the atmosphere of team."  But he made it a point of ending his statement with: "I want to win.  That's the biggest thing for me.  I'll leave it at that."

Sounds like Ohtani isn't too happy.  Neither is Trout.  So, that's both of the Angels' star players who are frustrated with their continued lack of success.  You can add manager Joe Maddon to that list, too.  Here's what Maddon said before Wednesday's game: "This can't continue to go on.  We can't annually be in this position.  This organization is better than that."

Are they, though?  The Angels have had no problem attracting free agent hitters to join Trout and Ohtani.  The problem is most of those hitters haven't worked out.  And they're paying those guys a lot of money.  So, they've got a massive amount of salary tied up in just a handful of players (who are unproductive), which really limits them when constructing the rest of the roster.  And the rest of the roster needs a lot of work!

The Angels' problem this entire time has been pitching.  Specifically starting pitching.  Everyone knows this, including the Angels.  They just haven't been able to do anything about it!  That hasn't stopped them from trying, but every time they go after a big name starter, he signs somewhere else and they're left looking for a Plan B.  (Ohtani, of course, technically counts as a starting pitcher, but he's his own category.)

Jered Weaver is probably the last pitcher the Angels had who can be considered an "ace."  He hasn't pitched for the team since 2016!  C.J. Wilson was the last big-time starting pitcher they signed as a free agent.  That was in 2012.  Wilson retired after the 2015 season.

Maybe they should start there.  There are so many front-line starting pitchers who'll become free agents after this season.  Their chances of landing a Scherzer seem pretty slim, and the thought of Kershaw wearing anything other than Dodger blue is something my mind can't even process!  But someone like Zack Greinke?  I can definitely see that!  Or, they could always trade one of their 35 young outfielders for a starter.

Their bullpen isn't exactly stellar either, but it's in nowhere near as bad shape as their rotation.  They have a solid closer to build around in Raisel Iglesias, and there are so many free agent relievers available that they should be able to find somebody.  You'd have to figure they'll be able to get a reliever pretty cheap, too.

They're also in desperate need of a shortstop.  They haven't had a worthwhile one since Andrelton Simmons, who just happens to be a part of the 2021-22 free agent class.  So are Javy Baez, Carlos Correa, Corey Seager and Trevor Story.  Yes, that's another high-priced position player.  But, if they actually do it smart and don't just throw the most amount of money at the biggest name they can think of, they'll still have the money for a starting pitcher, too.  Maybe someone like Noah Syndergaard.

Regardless, it looks like some major changes are coming in Anaheim.  Because the Angels being this bad for this long while having two of the best players in the game simply doesn't make sense.  You can't blame it all on the Astros, either.  Sure, they play in the same division as Houston, but they should at least be in the wild card mix, and they don't even do that!

So, this offseason will be a critical one for the Angels.  Trout isn't going anywhere.  He's signed thru 2030.  But if Ohtani really is this, he might be on the move the first chance he gets.  Which means they'd only have two more years of both Trout and Ohtani  together.  And Maddon's right.  Their fans deserve more than just getting to see those two great players in their prime.  They deserve the chance to see a winning team.

Picking Football Games, Week 3

So...it turns out I was right about last week.  A week that's full of it-could-go-either-way matchups is likely gonna lead to going somewhere around .500, which is exactly what happened.  Although, really, who saw Panthers-Saints and Titans-Seahawks coming?!  Fortunately, this week seems to be a little more straightforward.  There are some tossups, but, for the most part, the favorites this week are pretty clear.

Thursday Night: Carolina (Win)

Washington (1-1) at Bills (1-1): Buffalo-That's more like it.  The Bills had an uncharacteristically bad game offensively in Week 1.  In Week 2, they were solid on both sides of the ball in their shutout of Miami.  Washington, meanwhile, was the beneficiary of the Giants' choke job.  They have a crazy schedule, too, by the way.  They played the Giants last week, but don't play another division game until December.  They play 10 straight outside the division before playing their final five against the Cowboys, Eagles and Giants.  It's basically an NFC South schedule.

Bears (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Cleveland-Both of these teams won last week after Week 1 losses.  Was either incredibly impressive, though?  The Bears played the Bengals and only won by a field goal, while the Browns played a Texans team that we all saw on Thursday night.  Frankly, I think they both played better games in Week 1.  So they've both still got a lot to prove.  This one will be close, but since it's in Cleveland, I'm going Browns.

Ravens (1-1) at Lions (0-2): Baltimore-Last week's win was so huge for the Ravens.  Not only did it mean they wouldn't start the season 0-2, it, more importantly, gave them the confidence that they can beat good teams.  The Lions, however, are NOT a good team!  So Baltimore shouldn't have much of an issue with them.  Although, if they play like they did in the first half against the Packers, this has potential to be a close one.

Colts (0-2) at Titans (1-1): Tennessee-Carson Wentz will start for the Colts, but how effective will he be on that injured ankle?  Even if he was 100 percent, would it matter?  Not when they're playing a Titans team that rebounded nicely after getting thumped by the Cardinals and then some.  No one saw that comeback in Seattle coming, and it's gotta give them a whole slew of confidence heading into a stretch of three games they should win.  They have the chance to create some real separation in the AFC South.

Chargers (1-1) at Chiefs (1-1): Kansas City-Suddenly, this game has a lot of meeting.  The Chiefs and Chargers are still probably the two best teams in the AFC West, but one of them will be in last place after they both suffered tough losses last week.  Although, it must be noted, they both lost to pretty good teams.  While I think Kansas City is more capable of bouncing back from 1-2, the Chiefs rebounding and getting to 2-1 seems more likely.

Saints (1-1) at Patriots (1-1): New Orleans-I'm gonna blame last week on the Saints being without so many of their coaches.  Some of them are still on the COVID list, but enough are back for New Orleans to resemble the team they're supposed to be.  So I'm expecting this to be a bounce back week for the Saints.  I'm also curious to see how New England plays in its home opener after starting the season with two division road games.

Falcons (0-2) at Giants (0-2): Giants-The Giants have become masters at finding ways to lose games they've already won.  How else do you explain last week, which is really just a microcosm of the past few seasons?  Of course, you could say the same thing about the Falcons, who've been a mess since they blew the Super Bowl five years ago.  They'll be the one that's 0-3 after this matchup.  That is, if the Giants don't find a way to blow it again.
  
Bengals (1-1) at Steelers (1-1): Pittsburgh-Will the real Pittsburgh Steelers please stand up?  Do we even know who the real Steelers are?  Is it the team that won in Buffalo or the one that lost at home to the Raiders?  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  At least this week we'll get to see what their defense is like without T.J. Watt.  I'm also curious to see what Cincinnati does after playing two games that were decided by a field goal to open the season.

Cardinals (2-0) at Jaguars (0-2): Arizona-Has any offense been more impressive over the first two weeks than Arizona's?  I'm sure they'll have a bad game at some point, but it won't be this week.  Not against the Jaguars.  Another 30-point effort seems much more likely.  Arizona will move to 3-0, while Jacksonville will fall to 0-3.

Jets (0-2) at Broncos (2-0): Denver-Denver's 2-0 with a pair of road wins to start the season.  Sure, they played the Giants and Jaguars, but still.  They and the Raiders are the only undefeated teams in the AFC, and the Broncos should be able to make that 3-0 against another bottom-tier opponent in the Jets.  Things will get a lot more challenging with the Ravens, Steelers, Raiders and Browns coming up after this.  So they can't afford a letdown against a Jets team they should beat.

Dolphins (1-1) at Raiders (2-0): Las Vegas-How's Miami gonna play without Tua?  It wasn't very good last week, when the Dolphins were shut out at home by the Bills.  The Raiders, meanwhile, followed up their impressive win over the Ravens with a perhaps even more impressive victory in Pittsburgh.  Dare I say Las Vegas is for real?!

Buccaneers (2-0) at Rams (2-0): Rams-This is perhaps the best game of the week.  And it'll get people to stop talking about whether the Bucs will go undefeated or not.  Because they're not going to.  Tampa Bay's offense has been firing on all cylinders, especially last week, but neither the Cowboys nor the Falcons is as good defensively as the Rams.  The Rams have the offense to hag with them, too.  Which is why I think they'll win.

Seahawks (1-1) at Vikings (0-2): Seattle-What exactly happened last week?  The Seahawks somehow managed to blow that game against the Titans and lost in overtime!  As a result, they're the last-place team in the NFC West.  So they're gonna need to go into Minnesota and take care of business.  The Vikings aren't as bad as their record indicates, but they aren't as good as the Seahawks either.

Packers (1-1) at 49ers (2-0): Green Bay-Aaron Rodgers looked like himself last week after looking like anything but in Week 1.  Now he returns to his hometown for potentially the final time as Packers quarterback.  San Francisco began the season with two very different road wins.  They beat the Lions in a shootout, then won a low-scoring affair in Philadelphia.  What kind of game do the 49ers have in store for us on Sunday night?

Eagles (1-1) at Cowboys (1-1): Dallas-They may be 1-1, but the Cowboys have put forward two very solid efforts to start the season.  Things could've gone either way on Opening Night, and they played a great game against the Chargers.  As I've said all along, a healthy Cowboys team is far and away the best in the NFC East.  And Dallas is well on its way to becoming healthy.  Which means look out as they begin a three-game homestand!

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 20-13

Ditch the Single-Eliminaton Playoff Games

The WNBA Playoffs got started yesterday with a pair of thrilling games.  Games that resulted in the elimination of the New York Liberty and Dallas Wings.  There are two more single-elimination games coming up before the best-of-five semifinals and WNBA Finals.

This has been the WNBA's playoff format since 2016, when they ditched conference designations and simply had the top eight teams qualify for the playoffs.  That was done, in part, because the Western Conference was far better at the time, so the good Western Conference teams knocked each other out before the survivor took on a weaker Eastern Conference opponent in the WNBA Finals.  And the change did exactly what it was intended to do.  The Minnesota Lynx and Los Angeles Sparks played each other in the first two WNBA Finals under the new format, with both going five games.

Under the current format, the top two seeds receive a double-bye into the semifinals, while the 3 and 4 seeds host the second set of single-elimination games against the winners of the 5-8 and 6-7 matchups.  So it's a huge advantage for the 1 and 2 seeds.  But is it fair to everybody else?  Imagine finishing tied for the second-best record in the league, but ending up as the 3-seed because of a tiebreaker...and ending up in the single-elimination round as a result!

While they're what make the NCAA Tournament so great, the multiple single-elimination games seem especially cruel in a professional league.  Especially when six of the eight playoff teams would need to win at least one (and four of them would need to win two) just to make it to the point where the "playoffs" actually start.  Some reward for making the playoffs, only to have them end in 40 minutes!

WNBA coaches and players seem to be in agreement that the one-and-done playoff games have run their course and it's time for them to go.  They'd prefer to have every round be a series.  While anybody can beat anybody in a single game, the better team is much more likely to prevail in a series.  And isn't that the entire point?

And, with the WNBA's CBA set to expire after this season, it seems like the two single-elimination playoff rounds will be eliminated moving forward.  The question is what they'll replace them with, although you'd figure a best-of-three series would make the most sense.

Is 3-5-5 the best format?  I don't know!  But it's certainly preferable to the current format, where the top two seeds only have to win six games to win the championship.  Ideally, the WNBA Finals would be best-of-seven, but one thing at a time.  And having three best-of-five rounds is too much of a jump from single elimination.  Which is why a best-of-three quarterfinal round is the perfect compromise.

There's some concern in WNBA circles about how a best-of-three series would be structured, mainly regarding the travel.  In the past, when they had a best-of-three, it was 1-1-1, which means you're traveling after every game.  But a 1-2 format means that the higher-seeded team is starting the series on the road.  There are pros and cons to both.  But, frankly, either is preferable to a single game.

I'm not suggesting they go back to the old format, though.  There are only 12 teams in the WNBA, so there's really no need to seed the playoffs by conference...especially since the "West" is still significantly stronger (five of the eight playoff teams were from the West, and the eighth-seeded Liberty got in with a 12-20 record).  So, I propose you continue seeding the teams 1-8, with four best-of-three quarterfinal series.

Going to a three-game series wouldn't add that much time to the playoff schedule, either, since the single-elimination games are played as doubleheaders and those two rounds are both done in one day.  More importantly, however, it would add at least four and as many as eight more playoff games....and eight teams would have the opportunity to host playoff games.  That's more revenue from both ticket sales and TV.

If the travel thing is such a concern, they could have the higher-seeded team host all three games, but I'd propose using the 1-2 model.  That way everybody gets a home game but the travel is still reduced.  (They could even schedule Games 2 & 3 back-to-back if that works better for TV.)  Then, just in case there's an upset, I'd reseed the teams for the best-of-five semifinals.

Or, if having the top two-seeds keep their first-round byes is important, they could still do that and have two best-of-three first round series instead of four.  Of course, that would mean reducing the number of playoff teams from eight to six, which makes it highly unlikely.

Then there's a third alternative.  The WNBA has the Commissioner's Cup now, which is a standalone regular season tournament.  The winner of that is likely going to be a playoff team anyway, but maybe winning the Commissioner's Cup gets you an automatic berth just in case.  Consider it like the Champions League.  The defending champion gets an automatic spot, but, if they qualify through their domestic league, that defending champion spot doesn't get used.  Same thing here.  If the Commissioner's Cup winner is among the top eight, there's no difference.  If they're not, it's the top seven and the Commissioner's Cup winner.

What's ironic here is that the WNBA's single-elimination games were part of the inspiration for the NBA play-in tournament.  I didn't think I'd like the play-in tournament, but it actually wasn't nearly as bad as I thought.  That could be an option for the WNBA, too.  If there's a tie for the last playoff spot (as happened this season), instead of using tiebreakers, they play a win-and-in elimination game.  So it wouldn't completely be the end of the single-elimination games.

Of course, the WNBA isn't the only league that currently has single-elimination playoff games.  It's all single-elimination in the NFL, while the NBA has the play-in tournament and MLB has had the single-elimination Wild Card Games for a decade now.  But even MLB may be shifting away from it.  Last year's eight-team playoff format was because of the shortened season, but I also think it was a test-run for going to a best-of-three Wild Card Series.

It's funny how I like the single-elimination Wild Card Game in MLB, but I think it's time for the WNBA to ditch the single-elimination playoff rounds, even though the MLB season is nearly four times as long as the WNBA season.  That's entirely the point, though.  In baseball, you have 162 games to prove yourself.  In the WNBA, you only have 36.  When you're only playing 36 regular season games, you don't have much margin for error.  Especially when your first playoff game might be do-or-die and could end up being your only one!

Time For a Salary Floor

Major League Baseball's CBA expires in December, and the negotiations figure to drag on for much of the fall and winter.  The relationship between the players and owners isn't nearly as toxic as it was in the 80s and 90s, but it's still pretty bad.  So, while I don't think there will be a work stoppage that actually affects the season, I do think there's plenty of stuff the sides will need to hash out over the coming months. 

One of those things that needs to be discussed is a salary floor.  The owners have included it in their first proposal, and frankly, it's about damn time!  Because a salary floor is long overdue!

Despite being the only major professional sport without a salary cap, MLB has managed to avoid a work stoppage since the 1994-95 strike (while each of the three salary cap leagues has!).  One of the reasons for that is precisely because they don't have a salary cap.  Instead there's the luxury tax.

The luxury tax is designed to prevent more affluent, large market teams like the Dodgers, Yankees, Red Sox and Cubs from simply outspending everybody else.  It's not that simple, of course, but that's the basic idea.  Every team is allowed to spend as much as they want on payroll, but if they go over the luxury tax threshold (this season it's $210 million), a percentage of their payroll is taxed and redistributed to everybody else.  The more they exceed the luxury tax, the higher their bill.

This system has actually worked pretty well at the top.  The Dodgers currently don't care at all about the luxury tax.  They're willing to pay whatever they end up owing.  But that's the exception.  We've also seen plenty of examples where the other teams who hover near the luxury tax every year (the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox) have deliberately attempted to keep their payroll below the luxury tax threshold, even if that meant not going after top free agents.  And as a result, those free agents ended up signing elsewhere.

However, the flaw in the current system has also been exposed and exploited over and over again.  Because, while teams being allowed to spend as much as they want on salary means there's no maximum payroll, it also means there's no minimum.  They can have 26 guys making the Major League minimum if they way.  And there's nothing to stop them from doing that!

These teams receive luxury tax money, but aren't required to use it on salaries, so they don't.  Instead, they pocket it.  We've seen plenty of teams (the Orioles, Marlins, Royals and Pirates among them) take the money they receive from other teams because of the luxury tax and keep it, while making no effort to be competitive themselves.  And it's only gotten worse!

There are still two weeks left in the season and there are already two 100-loss teams.  There could be as many as four!  There were also four 100-loss teams in 2019.  And three in 2018.  The number of 100-win teams in those same seasons?  Three in 2018, four in 2019, looking at just the Giants and Dodgers this year.  So, in other words, there have been essentially the same number of 100-win and 100-loss teams in each of the last three full seasons (2020 obviously doesn't count, but the Dodgers easily would've surpassed 100 wins after going 43-17 in the 60-game season).

Of course, the tanking strategy only became en vogue because the Royals, Cubs and Astros all used it successfully.  They all voluntarily sucked for a few years before winning the World Series with a homegrown core that they built using all of the high draft picks they received during that time.  Imitation is the highest form of flattery, especially in baseball, so other teams are using the "if they can do it, why can't we?" approach.

How is that fair to the fans of these teams, though?  The team is flat out telling them that they don't care about winning.  Likewise, how is it fair to the teams that are lining these teams' pockets with their luxury tax dollars (that they willingly spend while actually trying to win the World Series)?

Tanking has become a major problem in the game, and it's great to see the owners wanting to address it.  And the salary floor is an obvious way to do that.  It would force teams to actually invest in their payroll and at least make an attempt to field a competitive Major League team.  They can no longer just take their money from the luxury tax and do nothing with it.  They have to spend it on Major League talent, which wouldn't just eliminate tanking.  It would level the playing field, too.

Think about it.  Every team is required to spend at least $100 million on salaries (the amount of the salary floor in the owners' first proposal).  That makes more of them players for free agents in the winter.  They might even try to keep their own pending free agents instead of just resigning themselves to the fact that they'll have no chance of re-signing them.

It's not like $100 million is a crazy amount, either.  Eighteen teams have higher payrolls than that this season, and the Brewers ($97 million) and Rangers ($95 million) are both close.  However, there are also four teams (the Marlins, Pirates, Orioles and Indians/Guardians) spending under $60 million.  Not surprisingly, those four were all eliminated from playoff contention weeks ago.

Of course, it would be tough to enforce a $100 million minimum every day throughout the season, but there's really a simple way to make sure teams maintain that average.  If they don't meet the salary floor, they don't get their percentage of the luxury tax payments.  Knowing that would be the punishment would be plenty of incentive for teams to make sure they meet or exceed the salary floor.

As a tradeoff, the owners have also proposed lowering the luxury tax threshold.  The number they threw out there is $180 million.  That would put seven teams (the Dodgers, Mets, Yankees, Astros, Red Sox, Phillies and Angels) over the threshold, as opposed to just one (the Dodgers).  Which means those teams would either have to shed some salary or pay the luxury tax, which would then be disbursed throughout the league.

What it would essentially do is put pretty much everybody in the same $180-100 million range.  Teams like the Dodgers and Yankees would still be willing to pay the luxury tax, but, for the most part, everyone would stay close to that middle range.  Which would make baseball more competitive across the board and, more importantly, go a long way towards preventing tanking.  Truly a win-win for everybody.

Picking Football Games, Week 2

Wow, the Giants sure know how to turn wins into losses!  It really is kinda impressive how they keep finding different ways to blow last-second leads.  That's also what makes them so frustrating to watch.  Because how many games have they lost like that in the past five seasons?

Anyway, I obviously got my Thursday night pick wrong.  I didn't have a great Week 1, either.  A respectable 10-6, but my record definitely would've been better if not for the finishes of the Raider and Bengal games.

This week seems pretty straightforward.  Virtually every game has a clear favorite.  But those also tend to be the weeks where we see some upsets.  Especially this early in the season, when we still don't really who's good and who isn't yet.

Thursday Night: Giants (Loss)

Bengals (1-0) at Bears (0-1): Chicago-Good news Bears fans, you're tied for first place!  How crazy is it that the entire NFC North lost last week?  One of those losses was to the Bengals, who became the first team in NFL history to tie the game with 0:00 left in regulation, then win it with 0:00 left in overtime.  Fortunately they made that field goal and we didn't get stuck with a Week 1 tie!  They've actually got a decent chance to make it 2-for-2 against the NFC North, but I think the Bears will pull it off in their home opener.

Texans (1-0) at Browns (0-1): Cleveland-I couldn't believe that stat they showed about the Browns last week.  They've only started the season 1-0 once since they rejoined the league in 1999!  Then I started to think about it and it made a little more sense.  They weren't good for a long time, and now that they are, they keep getting scheduled against other good teams so that there's a good TV matchup.  So, in a way, it does make sense.  And the likelihood of them falling to 0-2 doesn't seem very high against a Texans team they're better than.

Rams (1-0) at Colts (0-1): Rams-Matthew Stafford gets his first road test as Rams quarterback after leading them to a win in his team debut.  Which is something Carson Wentz couldn't do in his Colts debut.  Getting back-to-back home games to start the season should make you feel good about your schedule...but not when they're both against two of the better teams in the NFC.  Indy will end up dropping both.

Bills (0-1) at Dolphins (1-0): Buffalo-For some reason, Miami is New England's kryptonite.  Throughout the Patriots' 20-year run of dominance, the Dolphins were the one team that always played them close.  And, they were the only AFC East team to win last week, so they're in sole possession of first place right now!  It won't last for long, though.  Because the Bills will win this one.

Patriots (0-1) at Jets (0-1): New England-They usually play this one at the end of the season, so it's weird to see the Patriots as the opponent for the Jets' home opener.  It's even weirder to see New England with an 0-1 record after Week 1.  They actually didn't look horrible last week, though.  Whereas the Jets...well, they're the Jets.  New England gets its first victory of the year.

49ers (1-0) at Eagles (1-0): Philadelphia-Both of these teams put up a lot of points in Week 1.  Was it a sign that they have really good offenses or that they were playing opponents with really bad defenses?  I guess we'll find out this week.  Although, San Francisco suffered a bunch of injuries against the Lions, which I think will make a difference.  It's also their second straight 1:00 kickoff, which always seems to come into play for West Coast teams.

Raiders (1-0) at Steelers (1-0): Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh and Las Vegas had two of the more impressive Week 1 wins.  The Steelers went into Buffalo and really had their way with the Bills in the second half, while that Raiders comeback was really something else!  But now they have to travel to the Eastern time zone for an early game, which wouldn't be an easy task if they weren't coming off a short(er) week.  So I'm going with the Steelers in their home opener.

Saints (1-0) at Panthers (1-0): New Orleans-Was last week's dominant win over the Packers because of the New Orleans offense or the Green Bay defense?  Or both?  I guess we'll get some answers this week, as they take on a Panthers team that had no trouble with the Jets.  The Saints are not the Jets, however.  Things will be much more difficult this week for Sam Darnold and Co.

Broncos (1-0) at Jaguars (0-1): Denver-Trevor Lawrence wasn't actually that bad in his NFL debut.  Sure, he threw three interceptions, but he wasn't the reason the Jaguars lost.  They lost because they're the Jaguars.  The Broncos, meanwhile, were in control the entire time against the Giants.  And they've got a really good opportunity here to start the season with two wins before facing the Jets in their home opener.  Denver could easily be 3-0 when Baltimore comes to town in Week 4.

Vikings (0-1) at Cardinals (1-0): Arizona-If you can make a statement in Week 1, that's exactly what the Cardinals did against the Titans.  That win could end up proving to be important down the line, especially with how competitive the NFC West figures to be.  As for the Vikings, things could be worse.  That loss to the Bengals was tough, but they're technically in first place since the other three NFC North teams played other NFC teams.  They'll no longer technically be in first place after they fall to 0-2.

Cowboys (0-1) at Chargers (1-0): Chargers-Tough schedule for Dallas.  They start with the season-opening game on one end of the country, then have to go to the complete opposite side for their Week 2 contest.  They'll be rewarded after this with three straight home games, but you know they'd like to get this one so they can start that stretch at 1-1.  Unfortunately, I don't see it happening.  Not with the Chargers finally getting to play in front of their own fans for the first time since they were still in San Diego.  The Cowboys will obviously travel well.  They always do.  But it's nice to see the Chargers finally able to have an actual home field advantage again.

Titans (0-1) at Seahawks (1-0): Seattle-The Seahawks are one of the best teams in the NFL.  There.  I said it.  And Russell Wilson is one of the best QBs in the league.  And now, they get to play in front of the 12th Man for the first time in two years.  Tough sailing for the Titans, who had all kinds of issues with the Cardinals last week and should have plenty more against Seattle.

Chiefs (1-0) at Ravens (0-1): Kansas City-Last year, they put this game on Monday night in Week 3 and the Chiefs came away with a 34-20 victory.  This time, they meet on Sunday night in Week 2, and Baltimore's really hungry for a win after that overtime loss to the Raiders.  The Chiefs typically shine in the national spotlight, though, which I expect them to do again here.  Baltimore will keep it close, but Kansas City is too strong.

Lions (0-1) at Packers (0-1): Green Bay-It's been a week, and I'm still in shock over how bad the Packers were last week.  I'm not shocked they lost to the Saints.  I am shocked about how they were so thoroughly dominated in a 38-3 rout.  They'll get a chance to rebound against a Lions team that gave up 41 points to San Francisco.  So, neither defense was exactly stellar in Week 1.  Which QB will have the better bounce back game?  Rodgers or Goff?  I'm saying Rodgers.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 10-7