Iowa Caucus

Sure, why not? I love trying to predict outcomes and elections (regardless of how little they interest me) are excellent opportunities to see into the future. On Monday the fine people of Iowa get to be first in line to decide America's next president. Better them than me.

Looks like Trump is comfortably ahead. But wait: this is a Caucus. You don't just hide behind a curtain for 2 minutes and yank levers and whatnot. In a caucus you actually have to go show your face and convince your fellow citizens which megalomaniac used car salesman should be the leader of the free world. How you respond to a poll question over the phone or on-line doesn't indicate that you'll actually show up for the process or that you'll have the stones to make passionate pleas for clowns like Donald Trump (*) once you get there. The flavor of the month might be Fruit Stripe gum long before the big day arrives. And, indeed, Iowa has a solid history of throwing surprises at the last minute. I'm not at all convinced that these poll numbers are really indicative of how it will all turn out.

Poll from Des Moines Register, Saturday, Jan 30:

Republicans      
Trump 28%      
Cruz 23%          
Rubio 15%
Carson 10%
Paul 5%
Christie 3%
Kasich 2%
Fiorina 2%
Bush 2%
Huckabee 2%
Santorum 2%

Donald Trump has pretty well held the lead on the Rep side since late summer. Do the people that say they support Trump actually like the guy? Its not a guarantee. Some people enjoy his brand of tomfoolery well enough during the preliminaries but may have no interest in seeing him become president and bidding up his price right before the market opens doesn't mean his IPO will take off. I don't think it will. I've long thought that Trump doesn't even want to be president and has been waiting for the electorate to get rid of him. But, again, his show entertains people and even his enemies have reason to leave him in the game so--to Trump's great surprise--the people still seem to like his spiel. But the run up to the election has its own momentum and I think Trump is kind of a patsy for the machinations of others. The fact that his popularity has stayed high regardless of his increasingly crazy talk is shocking (perhaps sobering) to those of us that figured he was just a flash in the pan. But I can't help thinking that Monday is the end of his run. I say he gets around 22%, finishes 3rd and limps into New Hampshire.

Ted Cruz has a consistency to him, a natural mode of thought and speaking that makes him a pretty solid Republican. But he's combative, an entitled upstart who has rankled his Congressional colleagues, couldn't win a Governor's race in Texas, doesn't have any particular expertise that would earn him a cabinet post and has no real qualification for political office save a megalomaniac desire to win elections. His ceiling is Vice President, don't you think? Look at the guy, he even LOOKS like a Vice President! I'd say his game is nuzzling up to Trump in order to earn enough unique support to add to Trump from the bottom of the ticket. I think his calculations will surprise even himself. I say he gets 27% and wins Iowa on Monday. His own success will surprise him because if he does surpass Trump, he'll have to turn to the rest of the Republican field and will look less and less like a viable candidate. A win in Iowa could actually throw all of his plans into disarray.

Marco Rubio is the guy the real Republican insiders want. They find Cruz to be an annoying jackass, Trump to be a Democrat accidentally let into the big house and Bush to be...well, a Bush. The real Republican insiders are pleased to have Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House and are itching for Trump and Cruz and Bush to just go away so that we get the Rubio show against Hillary. So far the voters have not bought that script and the insiders are biting their nails in hopes that Rubio pulls it out in Iowa. I think once the caucus gets going Trump will fade and Rubio gets a boost. Not enough to win but enough to propel him on to New Hampshire. Trump is the fly in the ointment, Trump is the one giving Cruz credence. If Rubio can get between those two, he's got a real shot to build support beyond Iowa. I say Rubio gets 22%, finishes 2nd (a dead heat with Trump would be a big victory for Rubio).

Remember Ben Carson? Seems like his 15 minutes were up a coupla months ago though he's had a bit of boost recently. The very public nature of running for office seems like more than that guy could stand. He's got enough to go to New Hampshire but if he pulls less than 10% in both of those races, I suspect he rides off into the sunset. I think Carson gets a minor surge (from folks that want an outsider candidate that isn't Trump) that fades, tops out at 9%.

Rand Paul never really got going this time around. The Trump phenomenon was not something he anticipated, I think he was prepared to present himself as the outsider compared to Bush and Christie and Rubio but Trump sucked up his oxygen, he had nowhere else to go. I'm a little surprised he's still around, sometimes its better to disappear than stick around and be defeated (hey, Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty can come back in the future without a shellacking in Iowa on their resumes). Frankly, Paul was always running against Hillary and never properly settled into the Republican milieu. I think Paul misplayed his hand, didn't correct for the change in conditions, isn't really right for a cabinet post, hasn't raised his stature in the Senate and probably only lowers his chances in New Hampshire by getting drubbed in Iowa. I doubt he gets 5% and the only way he comes back in 2020 is by making himself an even crazier Libertarian-type outsider (which could work if Hillary's the incumbent).

Chris Christie never took off in Iowa but he probably fancies himself a New Hampshire man anyway. If he can stay ahead of Paul and Bush, then that's good enough to re-start him in the next race. Christie definitely has cabinet potential and (I dunno) perhaps this can raise his profile for a run for Congress out of New Jersey. He's got aspirations that go beyond just running for president so I suspect he keeps running until he can align himself with the winner or the party itself or the New Jersey party apparatus. If he gets 7%, he would call that a huge victory and charge hard into New Hampshire. I don't think he gets there but he'll keep going anyway. I say Christie gets 4%.

John Kasich...I dunno who he is. He's governor of Ohio, maybe thinks he can run for Senate or thinks he can get a cabinet post. His ambitions have to be larger than just running for president, so like Christie, if he can top 5% and/or sneak ahead of Paul, he'll pat himself on the back and keep charging until somebody somewhere gives him a job. I'll say he gets 3%.

Carly Fiorina is auditioning for a cabinet post or maybe a Senate run. (Personal aside) Here in Kentucky I continually ponder the future of John Calipari (waaaaaay more important than the President of the USA to me). Cal gets rumored to all sorts of NBA teams and I am convinced none of those (for now) are right for him and he won't leave Kentucky; but, he has to do this dance to keep his profile high enough to get an annual raise and to keep him in line for the job he really wants, which I think is Team USA. Fiorina, likewise, has to do these things to seem vital, to look important and connected. Does she want Barbara Boxer's senate seat? I dunno. Does she want to be Marco Rubio's VP? I dunno. Does she want to be Trump's Labor Secretary? I dunno. Does she want to be the next CEO of Yahoo? I dunno. But she must want something apart from being President of the United States and this run in Iowa is all about keeping her profile high enough to get her another job/post down the line. I doubt we've seen the end of Carly Fiorina but I'd be surprised to see her in Republican debates after New Hampshire. I suspect the 2% of this poll is solidly for her and I think they're not for Trump or Cruz or Rubio or Bush or Christie or Paul, so I reckon she'll keep that 2% but I don't see her support growing.

Jeb Bush is just waiting for the right moment to show off that he's an actual adult amidst a bunch of right wing loud mouths. I lived in Florida when he was originally running for governor and I found him to be quite a strange candidate, certainly not like any Republican I'd ever seen. That was before his bro became president and turned the family name to mud. Jeb doesn't particularly impress me as a candidate but nor does he repel me. Unfortunately for him I think this is the end of his political career. No one wants him for VP and he doesn't seem to be auditioning for a cabinet post, so if he doesn't make it to the Florida primary (March 15) then I don't think we'll ever see that guy again. That said, this leads me to think that he's in it for the long haul: he's got money, he's got a fair amount of campaign infrastructure and he's already picked his fight with fellow Floridian Rubio that'll be tough to back down from. I think he's in it to win it and I think he will hang around through February. So while it would be nice for him to win Iowa, losing isn't necessarily a deterrence to him. Bush gets 4%.

Mike Huckabee is a previous winner of the Iowa Caucus, winning back in 2008. He rode his victory in Iowa to...well, nothing....and then into a show on Fox News. If you can't beat 'em on the campaign trail, get yourself a cable show and keep the mud slinging going year round. Since he won here before, I guess he thought he could win again or at least get high profile enough to score a VP nod (or maybe just get a better time slot on Fox). Huckabee has tried to cozy up to Trump but I don't see how he fits into Trump's puzzle, so I think the next time we see Huckabee in Iowa it'll be as a correspondent for Fox News rather than a candidate. I say Huckabee tops out at 2%. stealing the last of the Santorum crowd.

Rick Santorum is the defending champ in the Iowa Caucus, surprise winner back in 2012. Its true I can't stand any of these guys but I can't help but acknowledge that I loathe Santorum more than the rest and I'm more than a little pleased that the voters of Iowa have not fallen for his insufferable petulance a 2nd time. Whew! Hopefully he'll go back to Pennsylvania and just be a regional disaster instead of a national one. He's too self-obsessed to be a cabinet officer and I don't see this as his return to Congress, so I suspect (and hope) that this is the last we'll see of Santorum. As for his result, I don't guess he tops 1%.

Cruz 27%, Rubio 22%, Trump 22%, Carson 9%, Bush 4%, Christie 4%, Paul 4%, Kasich 3%, Fiorina 2%, Huckabee 2%, Santorum 0%

Poll from Real Clear Politics, Friday, Jan 29:

Democrats
Clinton 48%
Sanders 40%
O'malley 7%

I'll admit: since roughly this time in 2012, I've thought Hillary Clinton would be the next president. When the Republicans couldn't come up with anyone better than Mitt Romney, it seemed to me that Clinton was the obvious choice for 2016. She's faced a surprise challenge from Sanders but I suspect that will only make her stronger in the long run. The Dems and Reps are all backwards at this point: Republicans tend to choose the dullest guy that came in 2nd last time while the Democrats love to chase after rabble rousers with no history. But this time around, the Dems have (seemingly) settled into the rather dull, establishment candidate while the Reps are clutching at weirdos coming out of the woodwork. Yeah, I'll say it: Hillary is a boring candidate and her relative lack of rabble-rousing-ness is surely the underlying problem with her campaign. That said, I think the Left will continue to line up behind her as the first Tuesday of November approaches. I think Clinton supporters will turn out (and Sanders supporters won't), I think she surges to 50% which would look like a massive victory.

Sanders is the fave of lefty college kids who don't know how anything actually works. Sanders's blather is particularly galling to me but everyone thinks he's in touch and forward thinking. (Sanders taps into the irrational belief people have that government actually does stuff when I'm convinced it really only un-does stuff; but that's my personal prejudice) If the kids turn out, Sanders could get up toward 40% but I suspect that doesn't happen and he struggles to get 35%.

O'Malley...I don't know who he is...I'm more familiar guys at the end of the Denver Nuggets bench than I am with the lower level functionaries of the Democratic Party. I assume he's merely here to audition for a cabinet post or just to get some buzz going for the next time around. The conspiracy theory is that Clinton needs O'Malley to siphon support from Sanders, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him bump up to 10%. But higher than that seems virtually impossible.

Clinton 50%, Sanders 35%, O'Malley 9%.

(*) I don't mean to pick on Trump, I don't like any of these people. To me this is all about as interesting as Div. III hockey, I see no one to love or admire here, just a collection of teams I would never spend a minute watching on a Saturday afternoon. But this is my country so I'm supposed to pretend like this stuff matters and the only way I can do so is to handicap the race (despite my ignorance of how these races have gone to this point). The President of the United States is a position of vast responsibility and very little power, can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want the job (the ultimate dead end job, if you think about it). But every 4 years we manage to belch up plenty of self-aggrandizing exaggerators that need your love. I'd recommend just jerking off and ignoring this nonsense--your government would be a lot better off for it!--but no one ever takes my advice. Oh well.

Australian Open

The Australian Open is maybe my favorite tennis event of the year. Unfortunately, on the East Coast its on at 3am making it tough to watch live and tough to stay away from to watch tape delayed; fortunately, I've been putting my insomnia to good use and I got to catch the semifinal matches.

Djokovic over Federer in 4 sets
Man, Federer is only slightly worse than his decade-ago peak when he flat mooshed everyone he played (except for Nadal in Paris). Nadal stepped up his game and Federer went from penceled-in champ of every Grand Slam to quarterfinal-at-best also ran....except that he didn't. Federer is still easily a top 5 player in the world of tennis and he still mooshes most everyone he plays to breeze into the semifinals. Swept Berdych (#6), crushed Goffin (#15), dropped a single set to Dmitrov (#27), Federer is still rolling, man, still beating top ranked talent with ease. But Djokovic is a robot, gets to every ball, as smooth as Federer in his prime with the athleticism of Nadal in his prime. The first two sets went to Djokovic without much effort and it looked like the rout was on. But Federer finally snuck a break in the 3rd and the fans went nuts (tennis fans always love the guy they forgot to love at his peak). But, man, I ain't gonna lie: even when Federer got his break, I still thought Djok would break him back and take the tiebreaker. Fed held on but couldn't get it going in the 4th. Djokovic is the man right now, he doesn't dominate exactly, he wears people down with his grueling intensity. Federer is still mostly untouchable (Wawrinka and Murray can push him but no one else really) but he can't beat Djokovic, who's learned everything about being the best from Federer. Even though Federer probably won't win another major, he's still piling up impressive wins, going deeps in all four slams year after year even after Roddick, Davydenko and Nadal have long since fallen back.

Murray over Raonic in 5
Tennis is a game of inches. The match took almost 4 hours but it all comes down to 3 games: Murray dropped his 1st serve handing the 1st set to Raonic; Raonic had a brain freeze in the 2nd set, which propelled Murray back to form; Raonic lost his cool in the 4th set, which gave the momentum back to Murray. Raonic couldn't make a push in the 5th and Murray put it on him. The other 4 sets were basically a draw. Raonic impressed me but he let Murray get into his head when he challenged a call in the 2nd set, even though he won the call (seemed like he won every replay challenge in this match), Murray complained about Raonic's slow poke challenge and Raonic never quite seemed the same after that. Murray is a solid player but not vastly better than Raonic and if Raonic can keep his head together (always a tall order for tennis players), he should surge up to the top five this season.

I gotta go with Djokovic in the final. Murray's length will keep him in the match but Djok gets to every ball--EVERY ball--and I just don't think Murray has enough to knock him off. Then again, Murray only needs to capitalize on 3 or 4 chances and the Slam is his. I'll say Djokovic in 4 sets.

Super Bowl Preview

Panthers (-4.5) at Broncos (44.5)
The Bronco pass rush is the only hope the Broncos have of even staying in this game. If they can keep Cam off balance as they did with Brady, then they've got a shot to keep the game low scoring and close enough for some 4th quarter magic. Personally, I don't see that happening. The Broncos have a good defense....so do the Cards and the Seahawks, the last two squads that got carved up by the Panthers.The Panthers have a variety of weapons that the Pats don't have and Cam is far more variable in his game than Brady, so even if the pass rush is top notch, I'm not sure that's gonna be good enough anyway. The Panthers will score at least 30 points and there's just no way the Broncos can keep up with that. This looks like a replay of Seahawks-Broncos Super Bowl from two years ago.

And after the Panthers drop a megaton bomb on Peyton Manning's last game (I mean, right?), won't we have to consider this Panther squad as one of the best single season teams of all time? Apart from an inexplicable brain fart against a division opponent, the Panthers have absolutely torched everyone they've played this season (and I think that will continue for one more week). Dude, they just drubbed the 2nd best team in the NFC and the defending NFC champs in the last two weeks after going 15-1 in the regular season. After they drub the #1 AFC team with the #1 defense and the Hall of Fame QB, how many other teams in history will have a resume that even comes close to that?

Cam Newton is your league MVP and should be the Super Bowl MVP, too. I gotta go Panthers and the over, something like Panthers 34-14. Book it, punters!

NFL Playoffs Wrap Up

Pats 12-20 Broncos
This one surprised me. The Bronco D really showed out strong, Brady got hit more than I've ever seen and Gronk never looked right. I didn't see that Bronco pass defense coming because of the kid gloves treatment they gave Roethlisberger last week--man, I thought they'd rock that dude, happily giving up a personal foul or two. I guess they were saving it for Brady. The Broncos were able to get pressure without blitzing, choosing to blanket the Pats receivers which seriously disrupted Brady's timing and left him prey to the defensive front four. I thought Von Miller was the MVP of the game, that dude was all over the place, covering Gronk in the 1st half, pounding Brady in the 2nd. Manning gets all the love but truthfully after the masterful opening drive, he didn't do much for the rest of the game (one short TD after a Brady interception and a coupla FGs). It was the Pats' inability to get an offense going that made the difference in this game. The Pats had some controversy choosing to go on 4th down rather than kick FGs on 3 separate occasions with under 7 minutes left in the game; I was with that choice at the time because it seemed to me it didn't really change anything: they'd have to play D, get the ball back and score a TD regardless of whether they tacked on a FG or not. But the 2-point conversion (necessary because Gostkowski missed a PAT for only the 2nd time in his Hall of Fame career!) basically means the Pats had to get into the end zone twice to tie whereas 3 FGs could've won the game. It seemed implausible that the Pats would get three possessions that late in the game but...they did! If they'd stuck in two FGs and kept their 3 timeouts then another FG would've been the game winner. The Broncos 2nd half possession were utterly toothless (1 FG, 5 punts) and the Pats actually had a lot of chances to score.

(Interesting detail that I haven't heard anyone point out yet: this is Peyton's 4th Super Bowl with 4 different coaches....isn't that weird?)

Cards 15-49 Panthers
This one didn't surprise me. The Panthers have not had any problem scoring all year long and the Cards have looked kinda shaky in their last coupla games. As I wrote before, Carson Palmer, fine as he's been this year, is quite capable of turning the ball over and he did that in spades on this night. Cam was just about perfect, the Panther D was all up in Palmer's world, the Cards never got any offensive attack going, the special teams muffed one, this one was over quick. (1-1 in my Championship Sunday predictions)

Pointless Trade Idea

Kings get Love (4yrs/$114m); Cavs get Gay (3yrs/$40m; player option third year) and Belinelli (3 yrs/$19m).

Sacramento replaces Gay's scoring production within Belineli's style. Love can score at a high level but he'll get further from the basket, thus keeping the lane open for Cousins and giving Rondo a perimeter target.

Cleveland gets a scorer who likes to play closer to the basket than Love thus he won't overlap with Lebron the way Love does and he offers an offensive counterpoint to Kyrie. Gay is arguably a better wing defender than Love, certainly no drop off on that end. Belinelli brings nice wing scoring off the bench (can never have enough of that these days) and over the next three years is reasonably priced.

Getting Love out of Cleveland seems to be the thing to do, hard to imagine that only one sacrificial lamb will be enough to appease the basketball gods. Love has a big contract and hasn't exactly dominated anything since he left Minnesota but I think there's still plenty of GMs and coaches out there that believe in him. Gay gives the Cavs another crafty veteran scorer that has played with both Lebron and Kyrie for USA. Not sure Gay is an upgrade necessarily but this is addition by subtraction: getting ride of Love's expectations, demands and paycheck give the Cavs a leaner, more aggressive gameplan. And for the Kings a Rondo-Love-Cousins lineup is kinda sexy. If I were the Cavs I'd try to make it work with Love but if they're truly looking to get out, Rudy Gay isn't a bad replacement.  

(I had a thought earlier about Love and Mozgov to Denver for Faried, Arthur and Chandler which I kinda liked because for the Cavs it would split Love into 2 players (Faried the rebounder, Chandler the wing scorer) and for the Nuggets it would consolidate 2 nice players into 1 reliable star. Then I remembered Chandler is out for the season, which nullifies the whole thing. Dang. But, hey, nothing can beat that 'Gay Love Swap' headline that I proposed above)

NBA Coach of the Year

David Blatt was unceremoniously dumped by the Cavs this afternoon, thus he is no longer in the running for Coach of the Year. Perhaps it was laughable to consider him a real candidate but his team was #1 in the East with the 4th best record over all, those metrics tend to put you in the running. But this team was different. Blatt was never Lebron's 'guy' and always seemed on the hot seat even though his record in the NBA is among the best of all time for the 140 or so games he coached. With rumblings about Kevin Love and/Timofey Mozgov getting traded, it seems like the Cavs are not done making moves.

The Cavs apparently have passed the job interim-free onto Tyronn Lue, who signed a 3yr/$9.5m contract today. The good news for me personally is now the only obvious job choice for John Calipari seems to be off the table. Kentucky is only kinda okay this year but UK in the Calipari tenure have been an every other year kinda team and he's got another fine class coming next year to be paired with this year's good but not great class. Cats in 2017, y'all! And he's gonna make way more than Tyronn Lue for the foreseeable future (though it would not have taken $120m to get Cal to Cleveland).

So can Lue win Coach of the Year? No. How could he? What could the Cavs possibly do that would be an improvement on what Blatt was going to do? Winning the East seems likely, winning the Championship seems unlikely, with Blatt or Lue. So unless the Cavs go undefeated for the rest of the year, I don't see how Lue (or even a Blatt/Lue platoon) finishes in the top five. Indeed, until the impending trade roster moves, I don't see any difference in the Cavs now. I guess the Cavs locker room will be a more pleasant place....but maybe not.

And what happens to Blatt? Well, the Spurs bench surely has a seat saved for him but the early buzz seems to have him going to the Wolves. I guess but it all depends on whether Garnett likes him. At the moment he seems to be controlling the vibe there so if KG signs off on Blatt it could work...but if he doesn't, it'll be Cleveland all over again for Blatt. My suggestion: how about Phoenix? The core of Bledsoe, Knight, Chandler, Warren, Len, for better or worse, pretty much is what it is and flushing out Markieff and Hornacek will leave the team in a place where they need only a strong coaching presence. Blatt is used to winning but in the NBA he'll have to grind. If the Suns front office could get out of the way, Phoenix might be a solid landing site for Blatt.

Coach of the Year is still Popvich. Can't really even think of a 2nd place.

NFL Playoffs

Pats (-3) at Broncos
The Broncos have the #1 defense and the home field advantage. Unfortunately, they also have Peyton Manning. You'd love to think that Peyton can crank it up for 2 more games, then ride off into the sunset but I can't help remembering that John Wayne got killed in his last movie. Brady and Belichick will not be deterred by a #1 defense--shit, it'll keep 'em even more focused. Brady is machine-like these days, he knows exactly what he's doing with the ball as soon as he steps to the line of scrimmage, I can't see the Broncos slowing down that attack. Peyton is a crafty veteran, maybe he gets a coupla 1st downs that he shouldn't have gotten; that D is pretty good, maybe they can sneak a pick six or get a big critical stop; the Bronco special teams might push the Pats back or get a coupla big returns. Maybe. The Broncos might do some good things but I'm certain the Pats will. I'll say Pats 31-20.

Cards at Panthers (-3)
The Cards have a great D, solid running game, resurgent MVP-level QB and one of the great coaches in the league. They've been good-getting-better for almost a decade now and this feels like their moment. But I'm taking the Panthers. Cam Newton has redefined beast mode this year, Coach Rivera seems to have the magic touch and that D is wicked scary. Yes, they've been overacheiving all year long and this feels like the moment when they get their comeuppance but the Cards have a flaw: Carson Palmer is made of glass and quite capable of losing a fumble or two (or three or four). Throw in the wintery conditions and I've got to give all the intangibles to the Panthers. They're really quite similar teams but the Panthers are based on the dumb confidence of youth while the Cards are savvy veterans...but given the environment, I'll stick with the dumb confidence. I'll say Panthers 34-16.

NBA Rookie of the Year Update

60 players have debuted this year in the NBA. That number got to 51 within the first 2 weeks of the season then slowly trickled up to 60. There were 82 debuts last year so we can expect about 20-25 more debuts for the rest of the year, so certainly we've seen the cream of the crop although a handful of useful NBA players might still appear. So who's the best? I start with Minutes Per Game as an indicator of the team's faith in their player. Right now there are 20 guys playing more the 15MPG, let's start with those dudes.

Top 20 MPG: Okafor (30.7), Mudiay (29.3), Towns (29.1), Porzingis (28.2), Russell (27.1), Winslow (26.4), Johnson (22.3), Hollis-Jefferson (22.1), McConnell (21.4), Kaminsky (21.0), Nance Jr (20.5), Booker (19.4), Neto (19.1), Jokic (18.8), Bjelica (18.7), Lyles (18.2), Anthony Brown (17.7), Cauley-Stein (17.7), Grant (15.9), Turner (15.5)

Clearly, Okafor, Towns and Porzingis are the top 3 candidates with Mudiay as a pretty solid #4 (although due to injuries, he's quite a bit behind in games played). Porzingis has New York love (a powerful and loud thing). The eye test suggests that Towns is already a complete presence on the floor. Okafor is a helluva scorer, needs to round out his game (and clean up his off-court persona). Mudiay needs to avoid injuries but otherwise looks like he's gonna be a solid player on an overachieving squad; I'd say right now he's a distant 4th place but there's a lot of season left for him to shine out.

Just to show how head and shoulders the top 4 guys are, here's a coupla more stats:

5 rookies scoring double digit PPG: Okafor (17.5), Towns (15.6), Porzingis (14.0), Russell (11.9), Mudiay (10.7). 7 rookies above 5 RPG: Towns (9.5), Porzingis (8.0), Okafor (7.4), Hollis-Jefferson (6.1), Jokic (5.4), Nance Jr (5.0), Cauley-Stein (5.0). And only 3 rookies have 100 FTA: Okafor (68%), Porzingis (86%), Towns (86%).

Russell, Winslow and Johnson are having fine rookie campaigns and suggest that they're going to continue to get better in the future (which I think should be a part of ROY consideration).

Hollis-Jefferson looks like a solid role player but he's been out for a while and I think won't return for several more weeks; even still, he's a bright spot for the Nets.

McConnell...uh....nice kid....plays hard....should make a nice backup PG some day....but I gotta say his minutes are exemplary of the Sixers' desire to lose more than anything.

Kaminksy and Nance Jr are nice players on thin rosters, they deserve their minutes and both seem crafty enough to last in this league but neither are clearly stars to my eye.

Booker is just starting to get more minutes and taking advantage of them; he's a natural born scorer and with Bledsoe out, there's plenty of room for him to release his inner chucker.

Neto, Jokic, Bjelica and Lyles are getting minutes on teams that are used to giving minutes to new guys; I haven't seen much of Neto actually but Jokic looks like a really solid player, Bjelica is one of my personal faves of this bunch and I think Lyles is gonna be really good in 2-3 years.

Uh, I don't know much who Anthony Brown is, he's only played 18 games and has shuttled back and forth to the D League. I assume his advanced minutes are peculiar to nights when the Laker bench was extra thin. Sometimes these statistical analyses catch these flies in the ointment. No offense to Mr. Brown, I wish him well but I suspect he's not really a top 20 candidate for ROY.

Cauley-Stein is a great athlete on a team that needs way more than what he can provide; hopefully some day he'll get to the right team and be the all-out berserker he was born to be.

Grant was one of my favorite PGs in the NCAA last year, not at all surprised to see him getting solid minutes with NYK.

Turner is another one that's still getting used to his minutes, shows promise, looks solid but hasn't done much yet.

Others worth noting: Portis, Hezonja, Oubre look pretty solid so far; Payne and Harrell are just now starting get some run; and Marjanovic certainly has his admirers. I don't think any of those six guys really has a shot at ROY unless they really really (really!) take off in the last half of the season but they look like ballers that will be around for a while.

Right now I'd take Towns over Porzingis with Mudiay and Okafor as #3 and #4. But there's still plenty of season left and at this point (hate to be that guy) but injuries can still derail this race. Others that could still steal some serious votes if they start getting more minutes: Winslow, Russell, Booker, Jokic and Portis.

Suggestion for the NFL

Reports are speculating that the NFL is planning to have a London based team in the next 5-6 years. No. I do not like this idea. Basketball is a world game, soccer or baseball or track--these are world games. Football is an American game. I am not eager to watch Turkey play Nigeria in football, I have no interest in any expansion of the game of American football. Yes, I understand that markets need to expand or they combust. As a fan all I can say is: not my problem, bro. I don't believe that exposing football to more people around the world will expand the pool of potential players and as for potential fans out there, let them watch games on TV.

What should the NFL do? Become a hedge fund. Take your ginormous profits and invest in driverless cars or Hollywood movies or commodity speculation. I don't care how the NFL makes its money going forward but the amount of football being played is absolutely perfect and the game itself need not expand. Well, I should amend that perfection: I don't like Thursday games (opening night and Thanksgiving being the only exceptions) and I don't like international games. Football is not an international sport and foisting it on foreigners will only piss people off and not make the game better. I'm all for making the television transmission of games available in markets all over the world but not the game itself.

I can only hope that the NFL chooses to maximize its profit through scarcity of product rather than watering down that product by trying to expand America's game to places that are not America. I'm all for expanding hockey or tennis or golf (indeed, ANY other sport) but not football.

NFL Playoffs Wrap Up

Chiefs 20-27 Pats
The Pats get the ball with about 7 minutes left and a two TD lead. Instead of handing off to Steven Jackson and running off some clock, they pass 3 times and go three-and-out. Why? I appreciate wanting to stay true to the offense and keeping up the intensity but at that point running off clock is more important than scoring points. I've always had a soft spot for the Brady-Belichick Pats (and Vladimir Putin, too, so....ya know) and I admire the desire to run through the finish line but, dude, there are times when Belichick does the dumb thing instead of the easy thing (go back and check out that absurd L they suffered to the Eagles this year). The Chiefs were so discombobulated by the end (that last scoring drive was just plain weird in their lack of intensity and proper clock management) that it didn't matter that the Pats gave them a chance to win. But one o' these days Belichick's high octane machismo is gonna get the Pats shot in the foot. I was right on the winner and the fave but I thought the Pats would keep it under (which they would have if they'd just run out the clock on that 4th quarter drive). Pats go to Denver next.

Packers 20-26 (OT) Cards
The Cards played tight, man, the anuses were clinched that night. That said I was impressed with the Packer defense (best I saw them all year long) and Rodgers was able to run up good yards with receivers even the fiercest Packer fan had never heard of. And OH MY GOD--another hail mary TD!?!? One thing when it comes against the sorry Detroit Lions but the mighty Arizona Cardinals should never have allowed that. I'll be generous and say it was redeemed by the brilliant (brilliant!) play call of a shovel pass to Fitsgerald on the goal line. But really this game was all about the Cards playing tight and the Packers playing like solid professionals. The Cards were the better team on both sides of the ball but they better come strong against the Panthers or they will get run out of the stadium. I was right on the winner but I missed the fave and the over. Cards off to Charlotte next week.

Seahawks 24-31 Panthers
I thought the Panthers would whomp the Seahawks and for the 1st half I was correct, Panther sup 31-0 at halftime. But the Seahawks let it all hang out in the 2nd half and the Panthers played rather tentative and Seattle had their shot at pulling off the miraculous comeback. But the deficit was just too large and time ran out on them. This was such a 1st half/2nd half kinda game that its hard to definitively say the Panthers were the clearly superior team but they definitely came out stronger and punched the Seahawks early. The Panthers play with a swagger that is gonna be tough for the hesitant Cards to keep up with. I was right on the winner, the fave and the over in this one.

Steelers 16-23 Broncos
Roethlisbeger shrugged off injuries and played well in this game (I thought the horse tranquilizers might wear off at halftime but he played well throughout). The Broncos moved the ball okay but struggled to put into the end zone, piling up FGs to stay in the game. The Steeler D played well, the offense had moments but the Broncos really were the better team despite Peyton Manning's so-so performance. The Bronco D is solid but the offense would be better served by putting Peyton out to pasture and letting Brock Osweiler manage the game. I thought the Broncos would score more and while I was right on the winner, the Broncos failed to cover and the points were under. The Pats are coming to town next week.

NFL Playoffs Round 2

Chiefs at Pats (-5)
Chiefs have freight trained their way through the last two months of football, absolutely plowed the Texans in Houston last week, they're running the ball well, playing good D, not turning the ball over, playing good special teams--and the last time they played the Pats (fall of 2014) they won like 400 to nothing. One could argue they're the hottest team left in the final eight. The Pats, on the other hand, have lost 4 of their last 6 games, feature mostly injured players in the skill positions and the offensive line and various off-field weirdness this week appears that the team is entire disarray. Yeah, I'm taking the Pats. The Pats scored less then 27 points only 4 times this year and as well as the Chiefs are playing, I don't see them stopping the Pat attack. Nor do I see them moving the ball on this kinda underrated Pats D. The Chiefs are a team of managers, they've got a bunch of dudes that don't make dumb mistakes but without Jeremy Maclin (questionable as of now) they're devoid of playmakers and to win in Foxboro, they'll need some special plays. I'll take the Brady-Belichick attack to grind down the Chiefs, easily cover and stay under (44.5). I'll say Pats 27-10.

Packers at Cards (-7.5)
The Packers started 6-0, stumbled down the stretch but looked like the old school Pack against the Redskins last week. Ehhh, I'm not buying it. I think Aaron Rodgers is amazing (won't get any MVP votes this year, but dude he's the only reason they've gone this far!) but the rest of the team is so uninspiring. But the Redskins are even more uninspiring, thus what looks like a resurgence was merely a mirage. The Cards, on the other hand, are the truth. They've been stomping people all year long, Carson Palmer is better than he's ever been, Bruce Arians is probably the Coach of the Year and that D is as good as any squad in the league. I do not see them blowing this one. I think Rodgers runs for his life and gets little help from his teammates. Cards to easily cover but I'll go over (50) because I think points will get scored. I'll say Cards 37-20.

Seahawks at Panthers (-2)
The Seahawks are coming off a gritty, gutty (lucky as shit) win in the frozen tundra of Minneapolis last week. Though they've made 3 straight NFC Finals, they don't seem like the juggernaut they've recently been. Last week's victory was a tough one, we'll see what they have left. Though the Panthers lost only once this year, they're giving only 2 points at home to a team that just got lucky as hell after a frustrating physical game in blistering cold. Are we still not convinced that the Panthers are good? Dude, the Panthers scored below 27 points only 3 times this year: 20 in a W in week 1, 24 in a W in week 2, 13 in their inexplicable loss to the Falcons in Week 16. Scoring points shouldn't be a problem though it is worth noting that the only good team the Panthers played all year long (Colts, Eagles, Packers all disappointing) was the Seahawks whom they beat 27-23 in week 6. They've played the Seahawks each of the last 4 years now, playing them stout each time and this time (I'd say) come in as the superior team. I'm convinced the Panthers are good, I think Cam Newton and Ron Rivera are on the short lists for MVP and Coach of the Year, I think the home fans in Carolina are ready for a big victory and I don't think they'll be the least bit intimidated by the big bad Seahawks. In short, I think the Panthers are gonna crush the shit out of the Seahawks. I'll say Panthers 38-13, which is Panthers and the over (44.5).

Steelers at Broncos (-9; opened at -5.5).
The Steelers got even luckier than the Seahawks last week and IMHO never should've gotten this far. Even at their best I didn't think they were a very strong team outside of an insane ability to chuck the ball down the field. They come into this game without #1 WR Antonio Brown, #1 RB D'Angelo Williams (actually #2 but Laveon Bell has been out for many many weeks) and #1 (in our hearts) QB Ben Roethlisberger. The punters clearly have no love for the depleted Steelers going on the road and I can't disagree--since I didn't think they'd be good enough even WITH all those guys! The Broncos have the #1 D in the league, a crazy home field advantage and have had a week to get healthy (as opposed to a week of the Steelers getting even more banged up). This would seem like a gimme, right? Well, yes and no. Another one of Broncos' upsides is that they have one of the greatest QBs of all time, Peyton Manning....except that Peyton's been shite all year long and except for a recent victory over al-Jazeera, has looked very very (very) bad for most of this season. But he's back in the lineup when frankly Brock Osweiler would be better for this team. Look, the Steelers are coming in depleted against the top defense in the league, the Broncos need only a solid manager to guide this team to victory. If Peyton does just enough to win, the Broncos will romp; if he tries to do too much, he might just Favre this game away. This game is so one-sided its scary. If Osweiler were playing, I'd take the Broncos and give the points without hesitation...but Peyton freaks me out. I'll still go ahead and take the Broncos to win big (say, 34-16) but of all the home faves, I feel like the Broncos have the best chance to blow it. I'll go ahead and say Broncos and the over (39.5) but, man, I wouldn't put MY money on it.

NBA Coach of the Year Update

Lionel Hollins (Nets) is now officially out of the running for Coach of the Year. He wasn't high on my list anyway but this firing is just an example of how awful the Nets organization is from top to bottom. They get to all tell themselves that Hollins was the problem, while paying him to not coach their team. GM Billy King has been according to differing reports either 'fired' or 're-assigned'. Yeah, King deserves to go, he's the real architect of this travesty. I'd prefer to think of Hollins as a mercy killing, now he's freed up to pursue a better job.

Other coaches that feel like they'll be gone by summer: Jeff Hornacek (Suns), Dave Joerger (Grizzlies), Randy Wittman (Wizards), Byron Scott (Lakers). Hornacek seems to be a goner amidst the turmoil in Phoenix but none of the turmoil is his fault and after Markieff gets moved, perhaps he'll have a chance to quietly get the team moving in the right direction again. It feels to me like Joerger is actually having a pretty good year in Memphis but the team is naturally eroding and the coach is probably the easiest deck chair to re-arrange, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him go even if they make the playoffs. I've long thought Wittman has been overly maligned but this year it feels he's being quite properly maligned; maybe the Wizards just aren't as good as we think they should be or maybe they are and Wittman is holding them back. If they don't make the playoffs, I'd be real surprised to see Wittman back next year. Scott is only in LA to collect hefty paychecks to tally L's on his resume. When the team is ready to be good again, Scott won't be invited along for the ride and since I think they'll be ready to move this summer, Scott will absolutely positively not be back next season.

Others that seems perpetually on the hot seat: Casey (Raptors), Clifford (Hornets), Karl (Kings), Fisher (Knicks). The Raptors are playing pretty good right now but if/when they turn sour, I expect Casey to get run without hesitation...or they make a deep run and he wins Coach of the Year....you know, one or the other. I don't care for the Hornets roster as much as some pundits so I'm not sure if Clifford gets blamed for their mediocrity or if he's juiced in enough to carry on; I don't have a real sense of the job he's doing but I feel like he be canned at any moment. George Karl seems like a man who keeps a suitcase packed at all times and whether the team gets tired of him or vice versa, he could be out of town with a quickness. But he is well paid and I'm not feeling a lot of guys beating down the door to get into the Sacramento sanitarium, so I reckon as long as he's feeling those paychecks, he'll hang around. Fisher, like Clifford, is another guy that I don't have any particular feel for but I feel like he can be replaced quickly and bloodlessly. Maybe he stays, maybe he goes, but I can't help thinking he's just biding his time til someone more intriguing comes available.

And of course the Rockets and Wolves are under interim care at the moment, seems like they'll be looking to hire in the off-season. And for Minnesota I'll make a suggestion: Jeff Hornacek. The Suns front office has mangled most everything over the last 3 years and though the Suns have (arguably) underwhelmed on the court, I can't help thinking that none of that is Hornacek's fault. I still think back to his marvelous rookie season as opposed to the troubling follow-up years. Sam Mitchell has a great rapport with the youngsters but we've seen enough to know that he's not much a of a game manager and they will surely be looking to replace him. I really love the vibe the Wolves have at the moment and I think with the right coach they can be good sooner rather than later. I think they'd be better off getting the right coach rather than some big name coach. With Hornacek the Wolves could keep Mitchell as an assistant, preserve the parts of the Mitchell regime that work and replace the parts that don't work rather than overhauling everything with some big name (re: Thibodeau or Mark Jackson) that'll turn everything upside down. Mitchell isn't the perfect guy but he's not a total disaster either, keep him on board in the place where he can be effective and get an X's and O's guy to run the team on a daily basis. (And how about Kevin McHale as GM to go with him?)

The Rockets, on the other hand, they need an overhaul, they need a big name guy (re:Thibodeau or Jackson), as opposed to a youngster getting his feet wet (like young Mr. Bickerstaff). This year is all about Harden, Howard and whoever else getting on the same page, not really who the coach is. Next year, though, will be a time for a culture change. Bickerstaff should have a nice run with this team but I doubt he'll be back next year. (Might he be the right guy for the Wizards next year?)

As for the actual Coach of the Year candidates...well, I mean, its Popovich right? The best coach in basketball has remolded his shifting roster into yet another efficient machine of basketball destruction. Who else is even worth mentioning? Steve Kerr hasn't actually coached a game yet and he's got the exact team he just won a championship with--if anything, they've shown they don't even need a coach. So unless some team really blows up in the next 6-10 weeks (Raptors? Pacers? Rockets?), how can they even be a discussion about Coach of the Year? I mean, I just use it as a framework for the coaches on the the hot seat.

NFL Playoff Wrap Up

Chiefs 30-0 Texans
Yeah, the score pretty much says it all.  Chiefs ran back the opening kick and the game was over right then and there. The Chiefs looked good on both sides of the ball, gonna be a tough out for the Pats next week.

Steelers 18-16 Bengals
Wow, one of the all time meltdowns, this one will be remembered for a long time. Up 16-15 with under 2 minutes to go, the Bengals intercepted the ball in field goal range and the game was effectively over. Except that it wasn't. The Bengals needed only to kneel down 3 times, kill off the Steelers' time outs and then kick a FG with a minute or so left for Big Ben (who had his non-throwing shoulder pulverized earlier in the 4th quarter) to go the length of the field for a TD. But the Bengals fumbled, had back-to-back personal fouls and next thing you know, the Steelers are kicking the winning FG. The cries will undoubtedly come for the Bengals to fire Marvin Lewis but frankly if I was Lewis I think I'd quit, beat 'em to the punch and go get a better job next year. AJ McCarron wasn't great but he was good enough because the Bengal D mostly held the Steelers in check. Tough loss for everyone on the Bengal side (especially Andy Dalton, who probably could've won the game even with his broken wrist). Steelers go to Denver next week, with Roethlisberger, D'Angelo Williams and Antonio Brown all severely banged up (but at least the Broncos won't have Tebow this time around).

Seahawks 10-9 Vikings
Another tough home loss in Minneapolis. Both sides struggled in the cold but the Vikings were largely able to put up enough points to hold the Seahawks off. Until two miracle plays: Wilson fumbles the snap, looks to be crushed for a big loss, scrambles and throws for a big gainer that leads to a TD, followed very quickly by Adrian Peterson fumbling the ball setting up the go-ahead FG. The Vikings still had their chance, drove down the field and shanked the game-winner. The Vikings were the (slightly) better team but the Seahawks had enough veteran savvy to squeak one out on the road. (With as mediocre as the Packers looked for most of this year, we'll see if the Vikings can build something good next season) Seahawks play at Carolina, who has bedeviled them the last few years. We'll see if the old vets can still put it on the up-and-comers.

Packers 38-18 Redskins
Aaron Rogers looked like the old gunslinger in the 2nd half and that's all well and good but I'd say this was about the Redskins being unable to get out of their own way. Redskins got an early safety, drove down for an easy TD...except that Desean Jackson forgot to score. So they settled for an FG, then after another TD, blew the extra point. So instead of jumping out to a commanding lead, they limped along even while the Packers couldn't figure things out. Eventually it dawned on Rogers that the Redskins wouldn't stop anything and the onslaught began. The Packers have already lost at Arizona, we'll see if they can flip the script next time.

MLB Hall of Fame

In: Ken Griffey Jr, Mike Piazza
Yup.  Both guys are absolutely among the best of their generation and both are excellent examples of the sad soapy melodrama of the post-steroid years: Piazza almost didn't make it this far due to rumors of drug use while Griffey is perhaps the only unimpeachably obviously non-drug user of his time. And how can we say that about Griffey? Because he was always hurt! The 'steroids' that players used weren't truly about making them bigger and stronger (and certainly never made ANYONE better at the game of baseball), they were for keeping the players on the field during the day-in day-out grind of the long season. Griffey's last ten years or so were most notable because he hardly ever played. So you tell me: why is not using drugs so awesome? All it leads to is absence. Long live the drugs!

Over 50%: Jeff Bagwell, Tim Raines, Trevor Hoffman, Curt Schilling
Hoffman did very well in his first year, pretty much implying he'll make it in the next year or two. Bagwell was a very good player, Hall of Famer? I dunno, I guess. I wouldn't be offended either way if he makes it or not. That's also what I think of Raines. Raines was a reliable top quality player for a long time, played on a lot of good teams. Saying he was the poor man's Ricky Henderson is really a much better compliment than it sounds like when you consider (as I believe) that Ricky was one of the single greatest players of all time. Seems like he's got a pretty good shot to get in next year. Schilling was one of the best pitchers I ever saw, totally deserves to be in the Hall but may not make it simply because he seems like the kinda guy that would vote for Donald Trump. That shouldn't matter but, hey, man, voters vote for the guys they like. And I suspect Schilling is not one of the guys that liked. Baseball writers know best, right?

Over 20%: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina, Fred McGriff
Bonds and Clemens were two of the best players of all time, not putting them in the Hall makes the Hall look like a dumbass waste of space. 'Nuff said. I always loved Edgar Martinez's game, a very classy player, the baseball version of Stefan Edberg. Martinez's case depends on how you view the DH as a position: if you think the DH is just as much as part of the game as any other position, then I'd say he was the best pure hitter of his time and a helluva good baller; if you think the DH is a travesty and not impactful enough, then Martinez probably doesn't have enough to get in. Personally, I'd put him in. Mussina absolutely deserves to be in the Hall. He played his entire career in the AL East (probably the best/toughest division every single year he played), won in the post-season, was a steady rolling reliable #1 starter on a lot of good teams and was one of the best I ever saw. Whereas Schilling has too much controversy to get in, Mussina probably doesn't have enough, some guys are too quiet for their own good. I always liked McGriff, one of my favorites to watch back in the day (saw him hit a homer at Fenway once) but, man, that guy could strike out like nobody's business. Good player, not a great player.

Survived til next year: Jeff Kent, Larry Walker, Gary Sheffield, Billy Wagner, Sammy Sosa
Kent was mostly overrated throughout his career, shouldn't have even made it this far in the voting in my opinion. Walker was a helluva hitter (saw him homer once too) but didn't have the longevity or the post-season heroics that would make him a Hall of Famer. I think Sheffield is worthy of the Hall, he put up some big numbers for a long time on a lot of good teams. But he took drugs--yeah, so did Jimi Hendrix and he's a Hall of Famer. A little puzzled that Hoffman got such a huge vote and Wagner, a pretty similar player really, gets just enough to keep going. All in all I guess Hoffman was better but not by that much. Sosa always annoyed the shit out of me as a player but hard to deny that he put up all-time numbers and, along with the now vanquished Mark McGwire, led one of the most memorable years in baseball history fueled by drugs....though no one seemed to care at the time. If you're a baseball fan, a baseball watcher, how can you not put Sosa in the Hall of Fame?

Eliminated: Alan Trammell, Mark McGwire, Jim Edmonds, Nomar Garciaparra, Mike Sweeney, David Eckstein, Jason Kendall, Garret Anderson
Trammell was a fine player but if he hasn't made it by now, I guess he's not gonna make it. McGwire, along with Sosa, played a big part in one of the greatest years in MLB history, a season that MLB desperately needed to reconnect with fans...MLB came back but McGwire and Sosa got sold out like bus stop floozies. Personally I think its a god damn shame they'll never get the credit they deserve but baseball writers apparently have more 'ethics' than the rest of us (though I've never heard of any writers having to pee in a cup). I never liked Jim Edmonds, always thought he was an overrated hot dog of a player. Nomar was a lovable player, had some great years but didn't really build the big numbers the way Jeter and A-Rod did. Sweeney, Kendall and Anderson were nice players in their day but not Hall of Famers. Eckstein had some nice post-season moments, those are great memories that'll keep warm for the rest of his life, but not a Hall of Famer.

Out after the 1st try: Brad Ausmus, Luis Castillo, Mark Grudzielanek, Mike Hampton, Mike Lowell, Randy Winn
Mike Hampton had a period where he was one of the finest SPs in the National League, then signed with the Rockies and pretty much torpedoed his career. Too bad. The other guys were all nice players but none were gonna make it much further than the first ballot.

Next year's newbies: Manny Ramirez, Pudge Rodriguez, Jorge Posada, Vlad Guerrero, Danys Baez, Pat Burrell, Jason Varitek, Melvin Mora, Magglio Ordonez, Orlando Cabrera, Mike Cameron, JD Drew, Carlos Guillen, Julio Lugo, Derrek Lee, Arthur Rhodes, Edgar Renteria, Aaron Rowand, Freddy Sanchez, Javier Vazquez, Tim Wakefield
You know by now that I am convinced that steroids do not make you good at baseball (re: enhance your performance) and I couldn't care less what drugs people want to put in their bodies. So the fact that Manny Ramirez was one of the best pure hitters I ever saw is in no way disqualified by his two PED suspensions. Will he get in? I just don't see how that is even possible. Again: not putting him in only makes the Hall look petty and deluded....but he won't get in--probably won't even pass the first vote. I'd say Rodriguez is absolutely in, Guerrero and Posada might get in and I can see Wakefield and Ordonez getting some love over time. But I'm not feeling any of the other guys (though I gotta say Jason Varitek was always one of my faves).

NFL Playoffs

Chiefs (-3) at Texans
The Texans have a solid D....and not much else. Though they've played well for the last two months, they don't have any really impressive wins. The Chiefs don't really either but their early season losses are better and hide the fact that they were actually pretty good all year long. The Chiefs are the better team, better QB, better weapons, probably even a better D line and though the offense isn't overwhelming, they don't turn the ball over and that's the only hope the Texans have to score points. I just don't see how the Texans move the ball at all.  Gotta take the Chiefs to cover.

Steelers (-2.5) at Bengals
The Steelers are the popular pick as dark horse these days, while the Bengals haven't won a playoff game since...shit, I don't even know. But I watched both of these squads a lot this year: the Bengals are a legit squad on both sides of the ball and even with a backup QB, I think they can preserve field position and score points; the Steelers are so-so on D, a running game that is nice but nothing superlative, and while they have a great receiving corps, I'm not overhwelmed by the pass protection. If Big Ben can get over the top down field to his receivers then they can beat anyone in the league, but beyond that I don't think they're a very good team. Also, Big Ben is capable of throwing many many interceptions. I see the latter, I think the Bengals D is stout and I think even AJ McCarron will be good enough to get past the Steelers. I'll take the Bengals to cover and win.

Seahawks (-3.5) at Vikings
A strange thing looking over the Seahawks schedule this year: their most impressive win is at Minnesota in Week 13 (I'm not buying into a win at Arizona in Week 17, the Cards didn't need it, didn't put forth their best effort). Otherwise they lost to every other good team they played: Packers, Panthers, Bengals, Cards (in addition to getting inexplicably swept by the mediocre Rams). The Vikings lost in Week 1 at San Francisco but the other losses are legit: @Broncos, Packers, Seahawks, @Cards. Their wins include Chiefs, @Raiders, @Falcons, Giants, @Packers. The Vikings also remind me as a better version of the Rams, who seem to own the Seahawks. Both teams have been playing well for the last two months, so how do we weight the Seahawks victory at Minnesota in Week 13? Was that a preview of what's to come or where the Vikings playing opossum? I think the Vikings are legit, that D line is one of the best in the league, Bridgewater is underappreciated, Peterson is one of the best RBs in the league and I'm still kinda skeptical of the Seahawks and trying to win in someone else's house twice in the same year is pretty rare. All that said, I think the Seahawks' advantage is in the coaching: they've made deep runs the last 3 years, I think they can do it again whereas the Vikings staff has no track record whatsoever. I feel like the Vikings can hang but if the Seahawks get an early lead, I think they'll squeeze the life out of the Viking running game. I'll take the Seahawks to cover (but I wouldn't be surprised to see the Vikings show more than they've shown so far).

Packers (-1) at Redskins
Packers started off 6-0, looked great, arguably the best team in the league heading into their Week 7 bye. Then the wheels came off. Lost @Broncos (no sweat, Bronco D is solid, that particular game is when the Broncos finally got their running game going). Lost @Panthers (no sweat, that was the moment we all finally realized that the Panthers are actually good). Lost to the Lions (red flag! Dude, the Lions were trying to sooooooo hard to give that game away! And the Packers still couldn't take it!). Win @Vikings (sigh of relief for Packers fans, good win on the road against a feisty division opponet). Lost to Bears (uh oh, Packer fans getting the sweats again). Win @Lions (nice to get the W but that was the luckiest win anyone has seen in years, not exactly a confidence boost). Back to back W's against the Cowboys and @Raiders (okay, getting back to business, winning the games that ought to be won). Then finished with back to back losses to @Cards (no sweat, the Cards are frickin' good this year) and Vikings (uh oh, that was basically a home playoff game). Outside of Aaron Rodgers I think the Packers kinda suck. The D is not stout, those recievers are actually pretty terrible, offensive line isn't inspiring confidence, special teams isn't too special--what makes anyone think they're going to win a playoff game on the road when they basically just lost one at home? Redskins started mediocre, more or less stayed mediocre but they have won 6 of their last 8 games. They seem to have found their QB of the future and the D isn't bad. But are they better than the Packers? Well, they might be. The Packers are not terribly impressive right now and I think the pressure is on Rodgers to make plays in this game; if he does, the Packers can win but if the Redskins can keep him from doing big things, I think the Redskins can win. Indeed, I'll take the Redskins to win it at home.

NCAA Championship

Alabama (-7) - Clemson (o/u 50.5)

Alabama (13-1) played 12 bowl participants this year (only Charleston Southern and Louisiana-Monroe failed to make a bowl). 8 won their bowl games (Wisconsin, Ole Miss, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, LSU, Miss St, Auburn) and 4 lost (Middle Tennessee St, Texas A&M, Florida, Michigan St). Clemson (14-0) played only 7 bowl participants this year. Of those only Louisville prevailed in their bowl appearance (Notre Dame, Miami, NC St, Florida St, North Carolina, Oklahoma all got bounced).

Right off the bat: Alabama played more good opponents than Clemson did. But neither team blows people out, both do just enough to win. Clemson has a more prolific offense, Alabama grinds people down with toughness and a paucity of mistakes. I think Oklahoma and Michigan State were the lesser squads in this year's playoff, both angling in right at the last moment, so I take little from the semi-final contests.

I watched a lot of NCAA football this year but other than the semi-final game I don't think I watched Alabama all year long, while I watched Clemson beat Notre Dame, Miami and Florida St. All I've got is gut: Alabama will win but I like Clemson to keep it close. The score will be low, something like 20-17.  I like Clemson (+7) and the under (50.5). Book it, punters!
  
(For the future: I think both teams have a good shot at being in the top 4 this time next year again. The talk that Saban is going pro doesn't sway me, he's got a good thing in 'Bama and the money would have reeeeeeeaaaaaaal good to move him off his piece of gridiron heaven. Clemson's recruiting has been top notch recently and it looks like that will maintain. The ACC looks kinda soft to my eye (Mark Richt to Miami doesn't get me all jazzed, long thought that guy was overrated) and if Jimbo Fisher gets poached from Florida State, then Clemson has a clear path back to the playoff for the foreseeable future. Notre Dame is moving in the right direction, surely Urban Meyer won't squander another fine class at Ohio State and LSU needs a warpath kinda season to save the dangling Les Miles, throw in 'Bama and Clemson and that's a good start at next year's final four)