2026 NFL PLAYOFFS---Conference Championships

         I expect both Conference Championship games will be blow-outs and will lead to a Seahawks-Patriots Superbowl.

 

New England @ Denver (+5.5)

 

         New England is the best team in the AFC playoff list and Denver is the worst.  Adjusted yards/pass (“AYP”), for the Pats was 8.1 this season; for the Broncos it was 5.5.  New England was 7-0 in blow-outs this year and Denver was only 3-1.  While it is true the Pats will be forced to do their dirty work in the unfriendly confines of Mile High Stadium, they are 8-1 on the road this year.

 

         I’m deeply annoyed Bo Nix got totaled last Saturday because it means the Pats will be laying two or three points more than they otherwise would have.  Nix is not the reason the Broncos got to the playoffs and there is no reason to think they will be a worse offensive team with Jarrett Stidham over center.  Denver might be better off with what’s-his-name, who hasn’t thrown an NFL pass since 2023, but I still have to lay the extra points.

 

         The Broncos could bring back John Elway for all I care.  The Pats win, and easily.  Lay the points.

 

L.A. Rams @ Seattle (-2.5)

 

         The Rams are 8-0 in blow-outs this year and the Seahawks are 7-0.  In terms of all the important numbers, these are the two best teams in the NFC by a substantial margin.  The Rams even have a slightly superior AYP (7.2 to 6.9), though Seattle’s pass defense is significantly better, statistically.  These teams played each other twice, and each won a close game at home.

 

         But that was then and this is now.

 

         The LA. Rams have now won two games in these playoffs and haven’t covered yet.  I hate teams like that, don’t you?  But that’s not why I’m predicting a rout here.  It’s because the Seahawks are getting better every week and the Rams continue to go backwards.

 

         The Seahawks were good enough to take the Wildcard Weekend off and then crush the 49ers 41-6.  The Rams, by contrast, played the two worst teams in the NFC playoff roster and eked out 3-point wins against each.

 

         L.A. has survived by outscoring opponents, but the margins keep getting smaller.  They have given up 27 ppg over their last eight games while Seattle, over the same period, has given up only 13 ppg.  Over the same stretch, going back to November, the Seahawks’ margin of victory was more than two touchdowns per game, while the Rams’ was only 6.5 points.

 

         I am surprised the line here is only 2.5 points.  A more realistic spread would be 7.  Take the Seahawks and lay the points.

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki  

“NAME THREE”—On the Existence and Identification of Imaginary People

 

         I was writing an article about the cultural changes I experienced moving from Philadelphia to Las Vegas, and at one point, I discussed the practice of carrying water around wherever you go because this particular practice differs somewhat in the two cities.  And as I delved deeper and deeper into the phenomenon, I used the word “retards” to describe a certain group of people.

 

         Before I publish these things online, I usually have my wife review them for typos, grammatical blunders, logical gaps, and other features that may discomfit or annoy my reading public.  On this occasion, she strongly suggested I not use the term “retards” to characterize the people I was describing.  She said it was an ugly term for the cognitively disabled and would put off some of my readers.

 

         “But nobody uses the word that way anymore,” I said.  “It doesn’t mean cognitively disabled.  It means a dope or a low-class boob.”

 

         “But there are still people who would be annoyed because you’re supposed to say neurodivergent or something.  Some people will be offended.”

 

“Name three,” I said.

 

I’ve been doing this for a while now.  Whenever I hear there are a lot of people who think something or did something, or believe something, or will do something, I ask myself whether I know any such people.  I am acquainted with a fair number of people, probably in triple digits, and if I can’t think of somebody I know who might fit the imagined profile, I often conclude that such people don’t exist.

 

It started with Obama in the 2008 election.  I remember being told Obama would have trouble in the election because of all the people who wouldn’t vote for him because he is black.  After I heard this a few times, I realized I didn’t know anybody like that.  So I started asking, “Who?  Name three.” And nobody could name even one. 

 

It’s hard to imagine such a person, actually.  Plenty of people didn’t vote for Obama, but refusing to vote for Obama “because he is black” means that a person would have voted for him if he were white.  In other words, this is someone who voted for Mondale and Dukakis and Bill Clinton and Gore and Kerry, but when Obama came along, they refused.  “Vote for a Negro?  Are you kidding? No way!”  In a nation of a third of a billion people, you can’t say there’s nobody who fits the criteria, but there can’t be more than a handful and they couldn’t affect the results of an election.

 

(Going back into American history, and not very far back, there probably were such people.  In the 1960s, racist Southern Democrats could be persuaded to vote for a Northern liberal like JFK or Hubert Humphrey, but if someone like Jesse Jackson had been nominated by the Democratic Party, Southern Democrats would not have gone along.  Those folks are long gone.)

 

More recently, I have been fed the same line about Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris.  There are just too many Americans, I am told, who won’t vote for a woman.  Again, I say: name three.

 

There are certainly Democrats who stayed home and didn’t vote for Hillary or Kamala, but does that mean they wouldn’t vote for a woman?  No.  It means they wouldn’t vote for those women, who are arguably the worst Democratic candidates in at least the last century.  I could go into more detail about their manifest flaws, but this is not about Hillary or Kamala or Obama, remember?  It’s about using the word “retard” to describe people who have no real physical or mental impairment but are nevertheless, you know, retarded.  And my position is that nobody is offended by the term retarded because nobody uses that term to describe someone with a physical or mental disability.  “Retarded” just doesn’t mean that anymore.  Today “retarded” only means things like driving your car, alone, with an N-95 mask on.

 

The meaning of words changes over time.  “Zounds” and “gadzooks,” both of which refer to the wounds inflicted on Jesus Christ, were fairly powerful cuss words at one time, and now they are archaic joke words like cowabunga.  “Retarded” has a history as well.  At one time, “idiot” and “moron” were clinical terms used to describe different levels of cognitive disability, but they lost any clinical meaning and became silly insults used by The Three Stooges and others.  “Retarded” replaced them because it was thought to be a more elegant and gentle and descriptive term.  Now “retarded” has become a joke too.

 

And it’s only a joke.  No one is truly offended by it anymore.  My definitive proof came recently when Donald Trump called Minnesota Governor Tim Walz a retard.  There was enormous pushback to this remark by Democrats and the press and other Trump-haters, but none of it was based in the use of the word itself.  Instead, the response was a straight denial of the charge.  Tim Walz is not a retard, they said.  Trump is the retard.  Renaming the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts the “Donald Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts”---now there’s the retard. In other words, though the response to Trump’s insult was outrage, the responders nevertheless accepted the modern meaning of “retard” and “retarded.”  Everybody accepts it---right, left, Trump-lovers, Trump-haters, the woke, and the unwoke.  Even retards.

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki

2026 NFL Playoffs—DIVISION WEEK

 

         The only comment I received on my article on Wildcard Weekend was that it didn’t have any jokes in it.  “You used to put a lot of jokes in these things.  What happened to you?”

 

         So, do you know why football players don’t wear glasses?  Because it’s a contact sport!!!!!

 

Buffalo @ Denver (-1)

 

         This is the easiest pick of the weekend.  Denver has the lowest Adjusted Yards/Pass in the AFC, at 5.5 yards.  Buffalo, at 7 AYP, is second only to the Patriots.  This is one reason Buffalo scored 80 points more than the Broncos did.

 

         On their way on a 14-3 record, the Broncos lost to the Chargers, Colts and Jaguars, and they played none of this year’s elite squads (the Pats, Seahawks, Rams or the Bills).  With a weak schedule, they were only 3-1 in blow-outs, and their victories included beating the Jets by 2, the Giants by 1, the Raiders by 3, the Raiders by 7, and the Redskins by 1.

 

         Josh Allen, despite his rep as a playoff loser, had the best performance of any QB on Wildcard Weekend, completing 28 of 35 for 273 yards and a QB rating of 108.7.

 

         The wrong team is favored.  Take Buffalo.

 

San Francisco @ Seattle (-7.5)

 

         The other day, I was wondering why the football kept getting bigger.  Then it hit me.

 

In the first game of the regular season, the 49ers beat Seattle 17-13.  In the last game, on January 3, the Seahawks won 13-3 in a dominating performance notable for San Fran’s injuries and anemic offense.  Purdy played for the 49ers, but not well.

 

         Since then, the 49ers beat an Eagles team that seemed to be heading backwards offensively, so we can give them credit for that, but Purdy’s performance of 18 for 31 for 262 yards included two interceptions.  In addition, George Kittle is now lost for the season.

 

         Seattle’s AYP of 6.9 is superior to San Fran’s 6.1.  In addition, the Seahawks probably have the best pass defense in the tournament and the 49ers probably have the worst.  Seattle outscored its opponents by 11 point per game.  San Fran outscored its foes by 4.  Seattle was 7-0 in blowouts while the 49ers were only 5-3.

 

         I will take Seattle and lay the points, but the 7.5 points are a problem.  Two teams in the same division split their two games (both reasonably close), and as the broadcasters like to say, “These two teams know each other very well.”  Seattle will win, but I am not overwhelmingly confident they will cover.

 

Houston @ New England (-3.5)

 

         New England, with the highest AYP in the NFL (8.1 yards), is one of my favorites to win it all.  Houston, with a 6.1 AYP, should be a substantial underdog (more than 3.5 points), so my choice here is clear.  I’m on the Pats.

 

         On other measures, however, Houston has much to recommend it.  Both teams blew out their opponents in Wildcard Weekend, both teams outscored their opponents by a touchdown or more in the regular season, and neither team got blown out this year (Pats were 7-0 in blowouts and the Texans were 5-0).  Also, one can argue that the Texans, with their 19 interceptions on the year (vs. 10 for the Pats), have a better pass defense.

 

         So I’m not suggesting the Texans are hopelessly outclassed.  But the Patriots are better, and they are also at home.  Lay the points.

 

         And I have one more suggestion.  Houston gave up 6 points last week and the Patriots gave up 3.  With the total for this game at 41, consider the under.

 

         And by the way, do you know where football players go when they need a new uniform?  New Jersey!   

 

LA Rams (-3.5) @ Chicago

 

         Considering the numbers over the regular season, this game looks like a joke.  The Rams should win by 30.

 

         AYP for the Rams is 7.2; for the Bears, it’s 6.3.

 

         The Rams beat their opponents by 10.1 PPG; the Bears won by 1.5 ppg.

 

         The Rams were 8-0 in blowouts; Chicago was 3-2.

 

         Looking at just last weekend, Caleb Williams had a fairly dreadful game against the Pack, going 24-48 for 361 yards and 2 interceptions.  His NFL quarterback rating was 71.8.  Stafford’s (for the Rams), was 93.8.

 

         And yet, the Rams seem to be going backwards and have not played an impressive game since mid-November.  Over their last seven games (including the wildcard), they are only 4-3 and are giving up almost 30 points per game.  And of course, the mighty Carolina Panthers, who were a 10.5-point dog, almost beat them last week.

 

         And then there’s the stinkin Bears, who never look very good but who always seem to win the game they MUST win.

 

         So I guess my advice is to proceed cautiously.  All I have is my numbers and they tell me the Rams will (should?) crush da Bears, so I’m laying the points.  And maybe holding my breath.

 

         And as for the Dolphins, they didn’t make the playoffs this year, but they always lead the league in one statistical category: all-porpoise yards.

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki 

2026 NFL Playoffs---WILDCARD WEEK

         I refer the reader to previous articles on my NFL playoff predictions for the philosophy that guides me.  In a nutshell, the teams that win the NFL playoffs are teams that can complete long passes.  The best defensive teams rarely win.  Teams with run-based offenses never win.  What you must do to win a Superbowl is throw the ball down the field.

 

           For this reason, my primary tool is a number I call AYP, or “adjusted yards per pass.”  This is the number of yards gained passing during the season divided by the number of passes thrown and adjusted downward for the number of interceptions thrown.  A very good team will have an AYP over 7 for the season.  An AYP of 6 is pretty good.  Teams with an AYP under 5 do not play games in the month of February.

 

          Since AYP can also be calculated for a team’s pass defense, I do so, mostly so I can look at the extremes: who has a good pass defense and who has a bad one.  I also glance at point differentials over the course of the season.

 

          Finally, I note how each playoff team did in blowouts (defined as a game decided by 11 or more points), during the season.  When one good team beats another good team with a last-second field-goal, it may mean they got lucky. But when a good team beats another NFL team by 28, it tells me something.

 

         We start with the three categories of teams.

 

         With 14 teams in the playoffs, the occasional weakling may sneak through to the second round, but they have no real shot at playing in February.  The PRETENDERS in 2026 are the Broncos, Steelers, Chargers, Bears, Panthers, and  49ers.

 

         COULD GET LUCKY teams are those that have something going for them and could get to the Super Bowl with a few breaks here and there.  This year, there are four: the Jaguars, Texans, Eagles, and Packers.

 

         CONTENDERS are the best of the best, and this year they include the Patriots, Bills, Seahawks, and Rams. All of them expect to win the Super Bowl, and they will be disappointed if they don’t at least get there. 

 

L.A. Rams (-10.5) @ Carolina Panthers

 

         The Rams present an AYP of 7.2, best in the NFC.  The Panthers, with a 5.2 AYP have the worst number in the 14-team tournament.   The game looks very much like a blow-out, and the Rams are 8 – 0 in blow-outs this season, while the Panthers are 1-5.  And did I mention the Rams have outscored opponents by more than ten points per game while the Panthers have been outscored by four points per game?

 

         On the other hand, Carolina BEAT the Rams 31-28 on November 30.  This was the beginning of a disappointing last six games for the Rams where they went 3-3 (other losses to the Falcons and Seahawks) and gave up 28 ppg for those final six.

 

         This is not my favorite game of the weekend, and asking a fading Rams squad to cover a large spread like this is maybe asking too much.  Still, the Rams CAN throw the ball down the field and the Panthers don’t belong here, so I’m laying the points.  One thing I know is that the Rams can score the points---they scored 518 of them this year, highest in the league.

 

Green Bay Packers @ Chicago Bears (-1.5)

 

         Green Bay’s injuries late in the season have been a problem.  Micah Parsons is out until next year and Jordan Love ended December with a concussion.  The Pack lost their last four games and the last two were blowouts by the Vikings and Ravens.

 

         Love has cleared the concussion protocols, however, and will play.  While Green Bay may not go deep into the tournament, the return of Love should be enough to get them past the Bears.  The Packers’ AYP is 7.1, mostly due to Love’s excellent season, while the Bears’ AYP is only 6.3.

 

         The Bears are here for two reasons.  First, their division, which looked so scary last year, is not nearly as strong as it was, allowing the Bears to rise to the top.  Second, while Chicago’s pass defense is only 9^th best among playoff teams, they posted 23 interceptions this year, and some happened to come in close games in the last minutes.

 

         The Bears and Packers split their two games, each winning at home.

         

         The wrong team is favored.  Green Bay will win outright.

 

Buffalo Bills (-1.5) @ Jacksonville Jaguars

 

         These are both good teams, and either is capable of getting to the Superbowl.

 

         Jacksonville has won eight in a row and six of them were blowouts.  They have beaten their opponents by eight points per game and they may have the best pass defense in the NFL (partly because of 22 interceptions).   They are 13-4, one win better than Buffalo’s 12-5.

 

         Buffalo is close in all the secondary categories I look at.  They outscored opponents by 7 ppg (the Jags margin was 8ppg), and they were 6 – 1 in blowouts (Jags were 7 – 1).

 

         The major difference is that Buffalo can make the big plays.  Their AYP, thanks to Josh Allen, is 7.0, best in the AFC.  Jacksonville’s is only 6.1. 

 

         I will be on Buffalo, laying the points, but I expect a close game that could go either way.

 

San Francisco 49ers @ Philadelphia Eagles (-4.5)

 

         An offensive tackle is not usually viewed as THE key to a team’s offence, but Trent Williams is that guy for the 49ers, and it appears he may be too injured to play.  Without an effective offence, San Francisco is in trouble because they have gotten this far by outscoring their opponents.  Their pass defense is among the worst in the playoffs.

 

         Both teams have outscored opponents by about 3.5 ppg and have recorded more blowouts than blown-outs.  Philly has a meaningful edge in the AYP game (6.6 to 6.1) however.  That, the 49er’s weak pass defense, and the injury situation, lead me to take the Eagles and lay the points.

 

L.A. Chargers @ N.E. Patriots (-3.5)

 

         This is one of the easier choices.  The Pats dominate in almost every category.

 

         The Pats outscore opponents by 10 ppg; the Chargers beat theirs by only 1.5.  New England is 7 – 0 in blowouts, while the Chargers are only 5 – 4.  Most significantly, the Pats have an 8.1 AYP, best in the tournament, and the Chargers’ AYP is a mere 5.7.  New England also scored the most points of any AFC playoff team, and the Chargers scored the least.

 

         The Patriots will cover with room to spare.

 

Houston Texans (-3.5) @ Pittsburgh Steelers

 

         This too looks like an easy cover for the favorite.

 

         Houston started the season at 3 – 5, then won their last nine games.  They have not lost since November 2^nd, when the Broncos took them 18 – 15 on a field goal on the last play of regulation.  Along the way, the Texans blew out five teams and never got blown out themselves (Pittsburgh was just 3 – 3 in blowouts). They also outscored their opponents by 6.5 ppg and the Steelers outscored theirs by half a point per game.

 

         Houston’s AYP of 6.1 does not suggest they will be playing in the Superbowl, but the Steelers are even lower, at 5.8.  Finally, the Texans have given up the fewest points (295) of any team in the AFC.

 

         I’m taking Houston and laying the points.

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki

Democratic Republics vs. The Creepozoids

         When somebody like Maduro (or Assad, or Qaddafi, or Saddam Hussein) gets taken out by the U.S. or some alliance of democratic states, one complaint you always hear is some variation of the how-dare-we argument.  Venezuela, or Libya, or whatever, is a sovereign state and this guy is their leader, and we have no right to kill or arrest another country’s leader. And if we can kill so-and-so, why can’t they come here and kill our president?  What’s the difference?

 

         Well, here’s the difference.  If you killed Vito Genevese, the 1950’s mafia boss of New York City, nobody would care except for a few people who might have been depending on him for a paycheck.  But if you killed Dwight Eisenhower, the nation would go to war against you.  Even people who hated Eisenhower would come after you because in attacking him, you were attacking our nation.  We elected him, so you were attacking us.  Even today, when there are plenty of Americans who hate Donald Trump, a foreign power killing him would be viewed as an assault on America, and not on the individual named Donald Trump.  Even those who would be happy he’s gone would understand that Trump is a symbol of our electoral system.

 

         But Maduro and Saddam and the various other monsters around the world are symbols of nothing.  They come to power and they maintain their power through force and weaponry and torture and bribes and phony elections and by making deals with other homicidal creeps like themselves.  And when they’re gone, nobody misses them.

 

         Eight million people fled Venezuela during Maduro’s reign, and today those people are dancing in the streets and kissing each other in cities around the world.  The same celebrations occurred when Qaddafi went down, and Milosevic, and all the others.  The issue is never how do we get them back?  The issue is always how do we make sure they and their henchmen never sneak in here again?

 

         Pundits and columnists (e.g., Thomas Friedman of the NYT), will sometimes tell us that totalitarian governments like China have an advantage over democratic republics like the U.S. because they can “get things done” or implement policies “more efficiently.”  An arguable point, though government by edict can sometimes produce ridiculous results (huge empty Chinese cities), that could never occur in a politically-free society.

 

         However, for all the “inefficiency” of political fights among elected officials in a republic, there are enormous advantages in having leaders who were put in place by popular support.  Having the citizenry behind you means you are “legitimate,” even to those who opposed you or even to those who think you are scum.  And this legitimacy is a weapon that can and should be used more often against the Maduros and Ayatollahs of the world.  When dictators and strongmen appear, we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt because of our history and familiarity with tyrants, monarchs and conquerors.  This is the head of their government?  Well, who are we to judge?  Maybe this is how the people in that country like it. 

 

         But they don’t like it, of course.  They don’t like the guy who grabs all the wealth and tells you how to pray and always gets the best cuts of meat and the backstage passes to the Zeppelin concert and who, when you object, cuts your head off.  A thousand years ago, or even three hundred years ago, this kind of ruler was usually the only option, but we’re past that, or we should be.  We had the Enlightenment, remember?  And the American Revolution.  There are elected parliaments all over the world now.  The entire world wants the bedrock principle of politics to be the consent of the governed.  So why do we tolerate hoodlums who torture their critics or seize property that doesn’t belong to them or massacre people from religions they don’t like or make women walk around in bags?

 

         These things take time, I suppose.  The Brits passed the Slave Trade Act in 1807 and abolished slavery throughout the Empire in 1833, and the world basically laughed at them.  Those crazy Englishmen!  No more slavery?   Are they kidding?

 

         But the abolitionists and Abe Lincoln and William Wilberforce eventually won the battle, at least the battle for the world’s moral consciousness.  Today, there are still plenty of slaves around the globe, of various traditional and modern varieties, but the difference is that nobody defends the institution of slavery.  Also, if we catch a slaver, he will sometimes get prosecuted and go to the chokey.  Progress has been made.

 

         Removing the creepozoids, however, has taken a long time and will probably take a lot longer.  There are still people who, faced with the U.S. extraction and arrest of Nicolas Maduro, find reasons to object.  Many of these are creepozoids themselves, of course, like Putin or the Cuban apparatchiks or Xi Jinping, or wannabe-totalitarians like Bernie Sanders and Mamdani, but the point is that they exist.  They think allowing Chavez/Maduro to destroy a nation like Venezuela is a good thing, and that expressing such a view is permissible in polite company.  

 

         It shouldn’t be.  Just as nobody defends the institution of slavery, nobody should defend the monsters in the world with “sovereignty” notions that should have disappeared centuries ago.  It is time to start shaming the defenders of these tyrants for their moral ignorance.  It is time to make it clear that the defenders of the creepozoids are little better than the creepozoids themselves.

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki 

CLEANING UP 2025, HEADING INTO THE NEW YEAR

 

Resolutions for 2026

 

1a.  If you take your shoes off when you enter my house, you will be politely, then firmly, asked to put them back on.  How did this thing ever get started?  Nobody ever did this 25 years ago.  If you had done so, it would have been considered impolite, overly-familiar behavior for a guest.  Now, it seems everybody does it.  I experienced it to some extent when I lived in Philly, but here in Vegas, EVERYONE takes their shoes off at the door.  And it’s not like these people work in horse stables and arrive at my front door having just mucked out a stall.  Typically, they were in their home, then rode over in a car, then got out and traversed a few feet of sidewalk to my door.  What, me worry?

 

         This ritual of demanding that guests remove their shoes strikes me as yet another step in the continuing deterioration of a host’s responsibilities in offering hospitality.  I have no duty to admit you at all, of course, and there are plenty of people who are not permitted to cross my threshold.  But if I allow you in my home, you get a hug or a handshake, a drink of water, something to nibble on, an ashtray if you smoke, and a Styrofoam cup in which to spit your tobacco juice.  Under most circumstances, I will lie to the police for you, so I’m hardly going to object to a few specks of dust on my already-filthy carpet from the bottom of your Buster Browns.   I WILL NEVER DEMAND YOU TAKE OFF YOUR SHOES.  Only Putin, or someone very much like him, would do that.    

 

1b.  The other piece of this, or the flip side, is that I will not de-shoe myself when I enter your home.  I hope this is not a problem for you.  If so, just don’t invite me over.  I mean, when Trump’s $300 million ballroom is completed, he will not tell Japanese PM Sanae Takachi to take off her Manolo Blahniks before she seats herself at Table One next to Donald and Melania.  Ditto Bibi. (Though he probably won’t be wearing Manolo Blahniks.). The very idea is appalling, and the likely result would be a shooting war.

 

Predictions for 2026

 

1.    Travis Kelce will dump Taylor Swift early in 2026, he will marry a sweet, lovely, cheerleader-type girl by the end of the year, and she will produce three children for him by the end of the decade.  Taylor will write a blockbuster song about being dumped, her pain, etc., and she will release eight different versions and re-mixes of it so her fans will have to spend hundreds of dollars buying them all.

 

2.    The 2026 Superbowl will be played on February 10,

 

3.    Greenland and Puerto Rico will become the 51^st and 52^nd states.

 

4.    The Dodgers will win the World Series.  Again.

 

5.    Keir Starmer will be forced to resign as Prime Minister in the UK in 2026, but he will appear on Dancing With The Stars later in the year.

 

6.    Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Iran will all be granted NFL franchises.

 

Predictions from 2025—The Results

 

1.     I predicted the Toronto Blue Jays would win the World Series in 2025.  In fact, they lost in seven games to the LA Dodgers.

 

2.     I predicted there would be legislation in Nevada regarding bouncy castles.  On January 1, 2026, a new law goes into effect requiring they be shut down when wind gusts reach 15 mph.

 

3.    I predicted the correct score of the 2025 Superbowl, at 40-22.  However, I said the Las Vegas Raiders would beat the NY Giants by that score.  The actual winner and loser were the Philadelphia Eagles and the Kansas City Chiefs.

 

4.    I predicted the Kenyan Space Program would achieve a successful manned lunar landing on July 27, 2025.  In fact, it occurred on August 2.

 

5.    I correctly predicted that Christmas performances of The Nutcracker would be banned throughout Afghanistan by the Taliban in 2025.

 

6.    I predicted the Oklahoma City Thunder would win the Stanley Cup in 2025.  In fact, they won the NBA Championship. 

 

Copyright2026MichaelKubacki