It's still amazing that literally HALF of the NBA Titles have been won by two franchises (Celtics and Lakers). The history of the NBA has been centered around those two franchises, with one period of domination by Michael Jordan. In 2013, there is a good chance that neither the Celtics nor Lakers will make the playoffs- which just seems so out of play. We're used to seeing one or the other team always dominate.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Which Franchise should win first- NFL
Only four franchises (Texans, Browns, Lions, Jaguars) have not made the Super Bowl. And if you included the AFL or pre-Super Bowl NFL, many of these franchises would be off the list. But modern fans only start counting from the Super Bowl.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Which franchise should win first- MLB
In baseball, all of the franchises since 1901 have won at least one championship. The oldest franchises that have been shut out started in 1962 (The Astros and Rangers).
A special shout to the Florida Marlins, who have already won two titles in a very short lifespan. And by "shout out", I mean "Go to hell". I'm still bitter about 1997, thank you very much.
A special shout to the Florida Marlins, who have already won two titles in a very short lifespan. And by "shout out", I mean "Go to hell". I'm still bitter about 1997, thank you very much.
The teams that haven't won...
Another Super Bowl... and between two teams that I don't have any feelings for. I don't hate the 49ers or the Ravens, nor do I particularly care for them, either.
When in doubt, my default position is to root for the team that has never won the title before. That didn't apply in this case- both the 49ers and Ravens have won the title game, and in the recent past (my definition of "in the recent past"= "I remember when it happened"). So again- no rooting preference.
But my question today- turn that around. Of all of the teams that have not a championship, who do you want to see win the championship next?
This isn't the same question as "who is your favorite team?" In baseball, I grew up a Cubs and Indians fan. Both franchises have won the championships before (before I was born, but that's besides the point). Of the franchises that have never won the title, which one would you prefer to see break their streak and be crowned champions?
Any criteria is acceptable- I'm more curious to see who people are rooting for.
Monday, January 21, 2013
NBA... on the move!
The story is that the Sacramento Kings are being sold to an owner who plans on moving them to Seattle. It's a familiar story- a loyal fanbase being stabbed in the back by greedy and/or stupid owners who get bailed out by moving the team to a new city, just waiting to give them a brand-spanking new stadium and all of the money in the world.
(Side note: I'm a full-fledged capitalist. However, I make an exception for sports for three reasons:
1- Sports, unlike life, really is a zero-sum game. For San Francisco to succeed, Atlanta must lose. If that's the case, better to make things as equal as possible.
2- Sports teams have no problem blackmailing cities- and therefore, taxpayers- to finance their stadiums. Therefore, they've lost the credibility to be only a business.
3- Having lost the Browns and experiencing this firsthand, I'm more than a little bitter)
So I think it's time to strike back.
My suggestion, which I offer free to the city of Sacramento for no charge, is to make the following announcement:
"Hi. Because of the recent sale, the Sacramento Kings are going to be moved to Seattle. This will replace the team the city of Seattle lost when they were sold to Oklahoma. In both cases, fanbases were lied to and betrayed, and the NBA abetted and allowed this move.
Now, we could insist that the NBA cancel this move- but they claim they can't. Or we could try to change from being the victim to the attacker and take someone else's city. But that unfair to the other city.
So we're going to give the NBA two choices. Option number 1- a new expansion team, right here in Sacramento. Heck- we'll be so glad that the owners aren't the Maloofs that we'll take a brand-new franchise.
If you don't like that, we'll go to option number 2. Now, we won't steal another city's NBA franchise. That's because the Los Angeles Lakers will voluntarily come to us.
They'll come, because if they don't, the state of California- did we mention that Sacramento is the capital of California?- will pass a 10,000% tax on all NBA purchases involving California teams. Those Lakers tickets really will be made of gold, for as much as they'll cost. They can either move here on their own, or start charging seven-digit ticket prices.
Oh- and that tax increase also applies for all NBA contracts. There might be some legal issues, but since we don't have basketball here in Sacramento, we have plenty of time to go through the court system.
Now, some people might say that it's unfair to take the Lakers. But Los Angeles already has two teams, so they aren't losing the NBA. Besides, we're still pissed about the 2002 playoffs.
So, the choice is yours, David Stern. Give us a new franchise, give us the Lakers, or give us a massive check."
And, Sacramento... you're welcome.
(Side note: I'm a full-fledged capitalist. However, I make an exception for sports for three reasons:
1- Sports, unlike life, really is a zero-sum game. For San Francisco to succeed, Atlanta must lose. If that's the case, better to make things as equal as possible.
2- Sports teams have no problem blackmailing cities- and therefore, taxpayers- to finance their stadiums. Therefore, they've lost the credibility to be only a business.
3- Having lost the Browns and experiencing this firsthand, I'm more than a little bitter)
So I think it's time to strike back.
My suggestion, which I offer free to the city of Sacramento for no charge, is to make the following announcement:
"Hi. Because of the recent sale, the Sacramento Kings are going to be moved to Seattle. This will replace the team the city of Seattle lost when they were sold to Oklahoma. In both cases, fanbases were lied to and betrayed, and the NBA abetted and allowed this move.
Now, we could insist that the NBA cancel this move- but they claim they can't. Or we could try to change from being the victim to the attacker and take someone else's city. But that unfair to the other city.
So we're going to give the NBA two choices. Option number 1- a new expansion team, right here in Sacramento. Heck- we'll be so glad that the owners aren't the Maloofs that we'll take a brand-new franchise.
If you don't like that, we'll go to option number 2. Now, we won't steal another city's NBA franchise. That's because the Los Angeles Lakers will voluntarily come to us.
They'll come, because if they don't, the state of California- did we mention that Sacramento is the capital of California?- will pass a 10,000% tax on all NBA purchases involving California teams. Those Lakers tickets really will be made of gold, for as much as they'll cost. They can either move here on their own, or start charging seven-digit ticket prices.
Oh- and that tax increase also applies for all NBA contracts. There might be some legal issues, but since we don't have basketball here in Sacramento, we have plenty of time to go through the court system.
Now, some people might say that it's unfair to take the Lakers. But Los Angeles already has two teams, so they aren't losing the NBA. Besides, we're still pissed about the 2002 playoffs.
So, the choice is yours, David Stern. Give us a new franchise, give us the Lakers, or give us a massive check."
And, Sacramento... you're welcome.
Holy Crap... I'm in a show!
Lately, I've started going to the Improv at Mahall's in Cleveland. It's a fun show with a great group of people.
I've tried both stand-up comedy and community theater in the past, and Improv takes the best of both worlds.
Unlike stand-up, which is a solitary activity (it's just you on stage), Improv allows you to work with and play off others. Also, my own experiences with stand-up has been that the comics have a very cut-throat mentality.
In community theater you work with others, but it's extremely structured- you're limited to what the play is, or the director's interpretation of the play. It becomes repetitive. Plus, half the plays are very tragic in nature, and I continue a decade of being on a low-angst diet.
But with Improv, you work with a group of people, and come up with new things every time. And we've been lucky to work with a great group of people at Mahall's.
From this group, we found out about a sketch comedy group starting up, and now we're part of The Public Squares. I've always wanted to be on show like SNL or SCTV, so this is a dream come true. Our shows are (pitch alert!) Feb. 1 and 2nd. The crew is great, and the skits are funny.
Finally... the Mighty Bastard comes to the stage :)
I've tried both stand-up comedy and community theater in the past, and Improv takes the best of both worlds.
Unlike stand-up, which is a solitary activity (it's just you on stage), Improv allows you to work with and play off others. Also, my own experiences with stand-up has been that the comics have a very cut-throat mentality.
In community theater you work with others, but it's extremely structured- you're limited to what the play is, or the director's interpretation of the play. It becomes repetitive. Plus, half the plays are very tragic in nature, and I continue a decade of being on a low-angst diet.
But with Improv, you work with a group of people, and come up with new things every time. And we've been lucky to work with a great group of people at Mahall's.
From this group, we found out about a sketch comedy group starting up, and now we're part of The Public Squares. I've always wanted to be on show like SNL or SCTV, so this is a dream come true. Our shows are (pitch alert!) Feb. 1 and 2nd. The crew is great, and the skits are funny.
Finally... the Mighty Bastard comes to the stage :)
Friday, December 28, 2012
Reviewing my 2012 Predictions
Let's do some navel-gazing as 2012 closes and see how well my predictions stacked up against reality:
===================================================
Overall, not that good. And this is why you should not bet based on my prognostications.
Politics:
* Mitt Romney wins the GOP Nomination. He finishes in the top 3 in Iowa, which neither Gingrich nor Perry can do. After
Super Tuesday, he has such a large lead (and his opponents split among
too many candidates) that it will be impossible to stop him.
===> Pretty much true. Rick Santorum hung around a while, but Romney was never in serious danger of losing the nomination.
* He picks Tim Pawtenly as his VP nominee, though rumors abound that he considers Condaleeza Rice
===> Wrong here- Paul Ryan was the VP nominee
* President Obama retains Joe Biden as his VP, despite rumors of a swap with Hilary Clinton
===> Pretty much right- there was talk of a swap, but it never amount to much.
* In November, the Romney/Pawtenly ticket wins the Presidency. The House flips to the Democrats, while the Senate flips to the GOP, continuing a gridlocked government.
===> More than wrong here. I still don't understand how anyone can look at the last four years and think Obama deserves re-election. Then again, I may be the only person who became a bigger fan of Romney as the year went on, so my opinions probably aren't a good analogue for the rest of the country.
Sports:
* The Green Bay Packers beat the Baltimore Ravens in Super Bowl XLVI.
===> Wrong. The New York Giants beat the New England Patriots.
*
The Miami Heat win the NBA title over the Memphis Grizzlies, and about
19,000,000 stories will be written about LeBron James 'overcoming his
personal demons' to win.
===> Wrong on the opponent, but Right about the deification of James.
* The LA Angels,
having spent enough money on Albert Pujols to buy the salaries for the
Boston Red Sox AND the Texas Rangers for next year, still won't make the
playoffs.
===> Right on the nose here. Heck, the Angels finished third!
* The New York Yankees will beat the Philadelphia Phillies in the World Series
===> Wrong, wrong, wrong. The San Francisco Giants swept the Detroit Tigers
Games and Entertainment:
* Despite having no good reason to continue, the United States ban on online poker will remain
===> Sadly still true.
* At Wrestlemania 28, John Cena will defeat the Rock, while CM Punk will retain the WWE title against a heel Daniel Bryan
===> Wrong on both. Rock beat Cena, Punk fought a heel Jericho.
* 'Avengers' will be good but not great. 'The Dark Knight Rises' will be lacking compared to the first two movies.
===> Wrong here. The Avengers turned out to be a great movie. 'The Dark Knight Rises' was a fitting end to the trilogy.
Other:
* The world will not end on December 21st. Mayan experts will be quoted as saying, "Oops."
===> Well- we're still here.
* I will go through a two month period without posting anything, then post six times within a two week period. Both of the people who read this blog will appreciate it.
===> Pretty much. I skipped all of March, then went on a binge in August. ===================================================
Overall, not that good. And this is why you should not bet based on my prognostications.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)