The Appetizer Game: How the NBA Can Crash the Yearly Super Bowl Party

Yea, we know, we know. The Super Bowl is fast approaching. The 50th edition sees the Broncos taking on the Panthers. Past (Manning) versus the Future (Newton). Tennessee vs. Auburn. NFL’s Golden Boy vs. NFL’s Polarizing Boy. But this article is not about the Super Bowl---it’s about all the hoopla leading up to the Super Bowl.

Per tradition, there are two weeks between the championship games and the Super Bowl in order to build the hype, build the anticipation, and so that all the bets in Vegas are settled and ready to go. It is a lot of momentum that cumulates in a weekend purely and wholly dominated by football. The NFL reigns supreme not because of quality, but because of the ease of access and how easy it becomes to pick sides. But that’s for another article, we are discussing how as a competing league the NBA can hack into some of the Super Bowl glory.



I call it the Appetizer Game. Basically, The Big Game Before the Big Game.



See, because the NFL loves planning ahead we have the next couple Super Bowls figured out in terms of city and stadium. This year the Golden Game is in Santa Clara. 2017 belongs to Houston, and 2018 belongs to Minneapolis. Want to know what they all have in common? They all have basketball teams close by, which means basketball arenas within the vicinity of where the Super Bowl is being held. How ballsy would it be if the NBA every year would pit a huge basketball game at some point before the Super Bowl to nab some of the attention and some of the press already in town?

Now, what should the game be? Very easy: take the two teams that competed in the previous NBA Finals and have them play their first rematch. Take 2016 Super Bowl: the Appetizer Game would have been the Golden State Warriors and the Cleveland Cavaliers in whether the soccer-friendly Buck Shaw Stadium (is outdoor NBA game still out of the question?) or the much smaller Leavey Center. New location, new chance to draw fans in, and good way to enter the realm of Super Bowl territory while still promoting your league.

This is all manageable because the way the playoff format is, it’s guaranteed that the next season the two squads in the NBA Finals will play each other just twice. The winner gets the home game, as the other game will be held on wherever the Super Bowl is being held at (ONLY places where Super Bowl location doesn’t have basketball team: Tampa and San Diego). Ticket sales are easier, they don’t go on sale for the upcoming year until the day after it is determined which teams actually make the Finals. That way, we can cut down on people just buying the tickets to resell them to hungry fans. I will even take it a step further: on the first day they are only available to fans within the county of both participants. You’re welcome.

Let’s use the 2017 example. Houston Rockets’ Toyota Center will host the Appetizer Game on the Friday before the Super Bowl---with at least 7 months of hype since the Finals had finished far back in June and we purposely don’t schedule their rematch until this very day. The logo in the center of the court will be the logo of the NBA champion from the end of this season-----



(Let’s just assume right now it’s the Golden State Warriors, considering how amazing they are playing right now)


Of course it will be televised, and will get all the Disney/ABC/ESPN press since the House of Mouse is no longer interested in doing Super Bowl telecasts. So 6 months of hype, crashing the party of the superior sports league, two nearly guaranteed two big teams playing each other (16 of 30 NBA teams make playoffs, and very rarely does a NBA Finals Champ/Runner-Up fall off the very next year barring injury), and building a fanbase in another city or another region entirely. It may not be the most economically friendly plan, but it’s definitely one that will draw attention year in and year out.



I believe in the power and the potential insanity of the attention-grabbing Appetizer Game.

The (Quietly) Best News of the 2016 MLB Offseason

In the midst of the baseball offseason that has seen dozens of trades, questions answered, and signings (Cespedes not being one of them is quite bizarre), one of the better news in recent baseball memory has occurred under the noses of the mainstream media. The Tampa Bay Rays finally have permission to seek elsewhere for a new stadium, and may no longer be confined to the refrigerator known as Tropicana Field. This is fantastic news for Rays fans, for Tampa Bay, and for other cities in North America seeking their own baseball team.

We shall start with the Rays. They are no longer the Devil Rays of the past---this is a competitive team year in and year out with a flurry of front office people taking risks, making tons of trades, and sorting through the garbage big to pierce together a formidable squad. Even though the departure of Joe Maddon will eternally hurt the franchise (although some can argue that his departure led to increasing talks of a compromising to fix the Tropicana Field fiasco), there’s still enough good parts in the system to continue the fortune of good baseball. Most importantly, there is a certified culture, a distinctive and consistent personality.

The Tampa Bay Rays runs on old-school National League small ball, blended together with tight defense, unique decision-making, and ever-shifting strategies. Despite the management change, the attitude remains the same. The team revolves around Evan Longoria, who is signed with the team for the next several years (becoming the first and only major Rays player to stay in the organization for an extended period of time).

So what does this all mean? It’s not some hunky-dory awful franchise like the 76ers seeking a new stadium---this is a team with a personality, with a fanbase that is quietly growing (11th in television ratings), and with a future. The only issue within the past several season has been the stadium situation. It’s a domino effect: better attendance means better television numbers, which equates to more money to earn and spend on better players. And with the right location, we can see the average attendance of the team go up at least 10,000 per game. It won’t reach Fenway or AT&T Park numbers, but given the right destination the Rays can draw 25,000-30,000 fans per game easily. 50 million visit Orlando, over 4 million people live in Tampa Bay, and a total of 93 million visit Florida yearly---25,000 is a lofty and definitely reachable goal. It benefits Tampa, and benefits the opposing teams visiting the new ballpark.

Although the relocation idea might have been hampered because Tampa Bay now has permission to search within the borders of Tampa and Pinellas County, don’t get too upset Montreal, Portland, Mexico City, Charleston, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and maybe even Dominican Republic (Caribbean Nation would be perfect for an MLB team). With the Rays on the stadium upswing, it only leaves us with one remaining franchise in actual need of a new stadium: The Oakland Athletics. The argument can be made for the Atlanta Braves and the Chicago White Sox---but if Oakland can land a deal then the idea of expansion will hold much more weight.

32 teams is not a pipe dream, considering that Major League Baseball is the second most-successful league in the entire world, after the NFL of course. It is inches from the 10 billion mark, and that’s before the television contracts of multiple teams get refinanced and see drastic improvement. So why couldn’t the league expand its borders and reach out to Canada and Mexico? Montreal has become extremely hungry for some baseball, with this new generation pull for the Expos to make its return. Mexico is beautiful country full of passion and culture---and 125 million people. Mexico not having a franchise from any of the major North American leagues is nothing short of confusing (Major League Soccer, seriously?!!?!?!)

With the notorious stadium situation getting closer to a resolution in Tampa Bay, Major League Baseball can focus its efforts on Oakland, potentially working on the situation in Miami (beautiful stadium, weary fanbase), and ultimately giving more cities the opportunity to host a professional baseball team. The vote in St. Petersburg doesn’t just positively affect Florida and the Rays, it positively affects the league as a whole and the future.

Down the road in 2020, when we see the Montreal Expos, and the Mexico (*insert name here*) starting the season along with the other 30 teams, we can look at this day is one of the reasons why.

Please (Don't) Go For It

2015 World Series. Game 5. Heck of a series (Game 1 was especially memorable), heck of a game. The Relentless Royals had pushed Matt Harvey to the absolute limit and now we have the already-broken Jeurys Familia trying to close out the game on the top of the 9th while leading by one run---with the tying run for the Royals on third base, just 90 feet away. With one out, there was a groundout to David Wright over at third. Wright looks over to the baserunner, and then throws to first base. Shocking the entire baseball world, that baserunner, Eric Hosmer, bolts for home even though the ball was still in the infield.



Lucas Duda, the Mets’ first baseman was so unprepared for the series of events he misplays the throw at home, therefore allowing the Royals to tie the game. Now, participating in the blame game is far too easy. You can blame Harvey for not allowing the Mets to save the game, you can blame the manager Collins for going with Familia and listening to Harvey, you can blame Duda for the terrible throw. The truth is, the Royals tied and ultimately won this game because they played the ballsier game, took the much bigger risks (They risked the entire game with the new-generation Slaughter’s Mad Dash), and shook the senses of the opponents. The Kansas City Royals excelled in making everyone else uncomfortable by always being on the attack.



Jesus, a reference to a play in the 1946 World Series. I have watched far too much baseball.



Fast forward to January 16, 2016. The Packers and the Cardinals. Aaron Rodgers had just sucked the life out of all of Arizona by successfully throwing a Hail Mary pass to tie the game. Yes, a Hail Mary with NO time left on the clock saved the Green Bay Packers’ season. All they needed was the extra point, tie it, send it to overtime. Of course the point was good. Arizona would win the game because Larry Fitzgerald responded to the comeback with the Hail Larry---a 70+ yard run that would trigger the game-winning touchdown for Carson Palmer and the Cardinals.


Now, I will not fault the Packers for tying the game. Not at all. They did the conservative thing and took their chances in overtime. That being said…



I would have gone for the kill in the fourth quarter. I would have gone for the two-pointer. Every single time.



The Arizona Cardinals literally watched their season go from NFL Title Game to Oh-God-We-Have-To-Still-Win-This. They are shaken. The fans are quiet. Everyone is stunned. The momentum is all Green Bay. So why not just go for the kill right then and there, and not depend on a coin flip five minutes later? Why not once again utilize the MVP of the game, Aaron Rodgers, and go a few more yards and finish the stunning?

Because the NFL in general is a very conservative, risk-less, gutless grouping of teams.

How many times do you see punts as opposed to going for it on fourth down? Even when down three touchdowns in the fourth quarter? How often do you see teams gunning for the tie as opposed to the lead? How often do you see teams playing it safe and just dragging an already-out-of-reach game? How many weaker teams do you see throwing in the towel in the second half? The NFL has a quality problem, and that is all these quarterbacks and coaches choosing to save face as opposed to taking necessary risks to even try to make a comeback.

Plays like the Mad Dash and the Hosmer Run do not occur in the NFL, they just don’t. Hail Mary plays do sometimes happen----but only in the final moments. You won’t see Hail Marys at any other point. You won’t see fake punts or field goals unless you are watching college football. You won’t see surprise onside kicks unless the score is within a touchdown and there isn’t much time left. I’m not saying teams have to fully renegade it up and go for it every single time, because football is about preserving the lead and also preserving territory to prevent the shrinkage of said lead.

The Royals did not have the deep talent of the Mets, yet managed to succeed and win the big prize because they played harder and took all the necessary gambles. In 12 of the last 13 Super Bowls (including this one), the Super Bowl featured whether Brady, (Peyton) Manning, or Roethlisberger. The AFC has been dominated by the same quarterbacks for nearly 1 ½ decades. The same teams win, regardless of how much hope you give your team. Compare that to the American League—which has seen 8 different teams enter the World Series---and they sometimes aren’t the best team in the batch either.

Yes, it is extremely silly to compare football and baseball. But I firmly believe that if these middle-of-the-hill football teams took more gambles we would see more surprises, and could see the boring conservative approach being replaced by a more entertaining, random, and relentless approach to scoring. This type of aggressiveness is what the Kansas City Chiefs (huddling while down by 14 and 3 minutes left?!!??) and the Green Bay Packers (Not going for it at the end?!?!!) needed to beat the obviously-superior opponents. In football, usually the best team wins, and although that guarantees quality football it leaves little room for surprise storylines. Perhaps shaking the entire foundation of the conservative style of play can alter this.



Until then, we still have baseball and its absolutely unpredictable upcoming season to look forward to.



P.S. Patriots over Cardinals in the Super Bowl---with Roger Goodell being “too sick” to attend.

Don't Panic, Cincinnati

There are way too many factors to blame for the absolute disaster that was the Steelers/Bengals melee. The city Cincinnati woke up with severe depression after witnessing what should have been a sure-fire win evaporate in the span of two game minutes. Once again knocked out of the first round. Once again losing to the dreaded Pittsburgh Steelers. Once again got bit by the injury bug. And once again, blowing a lead in all the wrong times. It is unfathomable to find a worse way to lose the way the Bengals lost last night.

Might be karma, for the fans throwing crap on to the field when Big Ben got injured (although it might be retaliation for one of their players being knocked unconscious and the Steelers celebrating it). It might just be the inability to overcome the hurdle of bad history in the playoffs. But there is a person that should receive none of the blame. None of it.





Marvin Lewis.



Keep that man’s job. It is not his fault that he was dealt a bad hand. It is not his fault that the heart and soul of the organization got hurt on the final weeks of the season and was unavailable to help out. Up until the injury, Andy Dalton’s Bengals were one of the best threats in the entire league---even clinging to the #1 seed at one point. I had predicted that this was going to be Dalton's coming out party---similar to when Flacco finally took the next step with the Ravens back in 2013. It is not Lewis’ fault that the Bengals front office staff also rounded up a squad with toxic players prone to self-destructing.

Marvin Lewis kept the team intact, prevented them from panicking, and coached them to within two minutes of a victory. With a back-up quarterback that clearly wasn’t prepared going up against a Pittsburgh squad that has a Super Bowl-winning quarterback at the helm, this team was destined to lose in the first place. I had all my money on the Steelers. No Dalton, no victory. In the NFL, you cannot win without your leader at center—it has become impossible in this pass/offense-crazy league.

Excellent teachers can wind up with bad classes of students. Great poker players can be dealt bad hands. Marvin Lewis was dealt an ugly scenario with emotional players knowing they won’t go far without the entire team losing their cool because their victory disappeared after a series of terrible decisions that was the result of the melee that had transpired during the previous 58 minutes.

Once upon a time, the Cincinnati Bengals was the best team in the AFC. Lewis’ job was not in jeopardy then, and it shouldn’t be now. The game was disgusting, didn’t have to reach that point, and the sooner everyone forgets about it, the better.



The 2015-2016 Bengals minus Andy Dalton was not meant to win. Don’t throw Lewis under the bus because of this.

The Hateful Eight: 5/10

Kendrick Lamar was the best live performance I've ever seen. April 2014, he rocked UCF. However, we had to endure two hours of mediocre rappers before getting to the main event. By the time we got to the very good part of the night, we were emotionally, physically drained. Lamar did his best, but Orlando struggled to maintain the energy. This is Hateful Eight in a nutshell.

It is extremely hard to get mad at Tarantino and the Hateful Eight project as they went through extreme lengths to ensure that it felt, sounded, and looked like a Western straight out of the 1960s. From getting Ennio Morricone to compose the soundtrack to using the same cameras used to film Charlton Heston, Tarantino and friends reached far back into cinematic history and moved it to present day. This alone propels the movie to become a unique experience, as there is actually an overture and then an intermission about halfway into the film.

But leading up to that intermission is where the film really struggles. Throughout his career, the better Tarantino's script is, the better the movie will become—regardless of all the other intangibles. Death Proof's climax rivals as one of the best in the past decade, but the ho-hum dialogue and unlikable first round of characters prevented us from truly enjoying it. In the meantime, Reservoir Dogs is one of the rare movies in which literally every word said is important, making it one of the best indie films you'll ever see.

There is a lot of what I like to call abe dialogue (already been established) in Hateful Eight—leading to a lot of repetitive dialogue, repetitive conversations, and verbal revelations that we had already encountered. As a matter of fact, you could have cut the first third of the movie because the facts and characterizations created were re-created once the movie's setting becomes more claustrophobic and remains in the cabin. Part of Tarantino's magic was his ability to create awesome characters without revealing too much about them. Sadly we don't get much of this in Hateful Eight.

The Tarantinoisms (good music, sharp imagery, inventive directing) start taking off once intermission ends and the intriguing mystery begins, as the tension suddenly revs up. In the second half is when things become interesting and the actors (and lone main actress) can start chewing at the scenery. The words suddenly become important, the details become more prevalent, and the audience has become much more engaged. In spite of this, the length of the film and the over-indulgence of throwaway dialogue weighs down on you and never allows for Hateful Eight to really reach the quality lengths of Tarantino's other hybrid westerns like Django Unchained and Inglorious Basterds.

Hateful Eight is like a large fluffy pound cake, a lot of density but lacking in flavor and substance. Tarantino directed this with his usual precision and quirkiness, however it lacks an outstanding moment, it lacks an outstanding character, and with the climax being delayed in favor of displaying past events it's hard to find the pulse of this irregular heartbeat.

In order for lengthy movies to maintain interest you have to cover a lot of ground in terms of whether years or space. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly covers an insane amount of Western territory, leading to every minute being required. Shawshank Redemption covers over two decades of prison life, so it too needed every minute. Hateful Eight is a cinematic bottle episode that could have been much shorter, much tighter, and with that each detail and word being much more vital.

Somewhere in that cabin lies a good story, and overall a good movie. You just have to get past the thicket of words to find it.

The Debate That Shouldn't Even Be a Debate

I will never understand the gun control issue.



This should not even be a debate.



We are not trying to ban all the guns, we are not marching to your door to strip them from your families. We aren’t drowning all your precious weapons by tossing them into the ocean. The only thing it sounds like we are trying to do, is making sure that we are safer while living in a society that accepts and loves their firearms. We are merely trying to make it harder for people that are mentally disabled, disgruntled, or just plain evil from obtaining weapons to use on innocent lives. That is it. What is the big issue?

We are not enforcing a shutdown on gun sales. We are not trying to limit anything. We just want to make the procedure a little bit tighter so fewer monsters can slip through the cracks and craft a deadly attack. We want less bad people having full access to weapons. To say this is a non-issue is absolutely silly, after all the United States has seen an increase in mass shootings and they have been becoming quite gruesome. Sandy Hook should still shake your soul considering that dozens of children couldn’t reach puberty because of an emotional prick.

The United States doesn’t deserve to moan about gun control simply because we collectively as a society have lost the right to freely just purchase a weapon. Although we are nowhere near as violent as the Middle East, we are still way ahead of the pack of civilized nations in terms of gun violence. Whether its suicides, murders, mass shootings, gang shootings, or accidental shootings by toddlers (which was an unfathomable 40+ incidents in 2015), the gun violence is at a high level and needs to cool off a bit.

The fact that we haven’t done much of anything since Sandy Hook is just a really unfortunate thing. After that terrible, terrible day, something has to be done. I am not asking for much: stricter background checks, banning of certain assault rifles (because seriously, you don’t need assault rifles unless you live in a warzone).

I am perfectly fine with people owning guns, I don’t fear them as long as they aren’t causing any problems. The truth is however we need to make this country safer in terms of gun violence. Being a stick in the mud and complaining that criminals will still kill is a silly argument. Under that logic, we should never lock our doors because criminals will rob you anyway. In terms of fighting crime, every little bit helps, plain and simple. This should be a non-issue. We need to work together on this, and try to reduce the crime. If you don't see a problem with the way things are right now, you are part of the problem.



Don’t ban guns completely, but go through the proper screenings and classes before buying one. Period.