How God Can Work Through Health Trials: My One Year Graves' Disease Update

It's been said that your senior year of college is one of the most fun years of your life. But what happens when you're sick with an autoimmune disease during that time? What if that autoimmune disease keeps you from being employed your first six months of post-grad life?

It's hard to believe that it's nearly been a full 15 months since my diagnosis of an overactive thyroid condition known better as "Graves' disease". I never anticipated that the condition would still be affecting me on a daily basis over a year later.

After a week of rigorous testing, I was given the appropriate medication to treat my thyroid last fall, and after a few months, I started to feel a lot better. It wasn't a smooth process, as I remained enrolled in all my classes, and had to live in an apartment by myself with little help. But in the spring, I started to feel much more normal and returned to my usual activities (writing for the school newspaper, exercise, intramurals, etc.).

I never quite reached feeling my normal 100%, but I was exponentially better physically from where I started. With graduation on the horizon, I had my heart set on starting my career as a freelance journalist. I was stoked to finally put all that I've learned to the test and get my career going. That was my plan, but not necessarily God's.

Not long after graduating, I started feeling extremely sick and tired again. After some medical visits and tinkering with my medication dosage, we discovered in the late summer that my thyroid had reverted back to the state it was in when I first began my treatment, only worse. My thyroid levels were poorer than they had ever been before.

So here I am, in mid-December, still enduring the same trial, still unable to work, and still on the sidelines. Yet, I'm far more grateful than one might expect me to be.

The first thing I'm thankful for is the most obvious external thing: graduating college. Even in the spring, my body wasn't normal and I was having nights where I wasn't falling asleep until 7:30 AM. Yet, God still gave me the strength and energy I needed to work through the year and accomplish my goal of attaining a four-year degree. It was miraculous, and it wasn't always pretty, but God carried me through my senior year.

Perhaps far more important than the external things are the internal things that could only come out of this situation; I don't think I would have seen them had I not been going through what I am currently going through.

Ever since I was a teenager, I have dealt with mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. One of the biggest parts of anxiety is having fear over the unknown. Instead of looking at what's currently on the highway, I get caught staring into my rear-view mirror, or continuously glancing at the map that's going to tell me where to turn in five miles.

I've always liked being organized and having my own plan. But recently being tired and sick all the time, I haven't been able to make long-term commitments, because I don't know how my body is going to be feeling on any given day. Instead, most of the time I list myself as a game-time decision, and as a result, I've found myself living day-to-day. And that has been very freeing. It's taken away a lot of my anxiety.

Matthew 6:34 reads, "Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own."

Instead of being overwhelmed, being sick has allowed me to delight in the little blessings that God offers to me each day. I've been able to see God's beauty in all of the little things, which has aided me in staying positive throughout a tiring process, and helped me create new patterns of thinking that will better me for when I do start to feel better.

Ultimately, being on the DL (Disabled List) has been a blessing in disguise, as it has allowed me to focus on growing my relationship with Christ. There isn't a whole lot that I can do outside of resting, so what better time to feast on God's word and spend time in prayer? It's easy when I'm busy to feel like I don't have time to pray. Well, God has removed that excuse.

The illness causes a great deal of pain in my eyes, so it's recommended that each day I lay a cold, wet towel over my eyelids for a half hour. Immediately I knew that this was God's way of carving out 30 minutes of each day for me to be in prayer. What else would I do in that time?

When I'm not doing anything externally productive, it's easy for me to feel like my time's been wasted. And though my first six months in the real world haven't gone the way I would have planned them to, they most certainly have not been wasted.

I may not know how much I have left of this process, but I know that I'll be able to look back on it and say, 'That wasn't so bad.' God is still good.

"Many are the plans in a person’s heart,
    but it is the Lord’s purpose that prevails."
-Proverbs 19:21

2017-18 NBA Regular Season Preview

Photo via Associate Press

Last year I penned my seven reasons why I didn't think the Warriors would win the title, and was dead wrong, sort of. With Golden State down 25 in Game 1 of the Western Conference Finals, it appeared that the Spurs may have cracked the code to the 2017 Warriors. But when Warriors' hit man Zaza Pachulia cheap-shotted Kawhi Leonard's bum ankle midway through the third quarter, any hope of the Spurs upending the Warriors in the West quickly evaporated.

As the Warriors' many moving parts continue to fuse together into a super-team, the hope for a more competitive playoff race appears even more bleak, despite a flurry of big moves from Western Conference challengers. Last year's playoffs were duller than an episode of Big Bang Theory; among the last 35 games of the postseason, just seven of them were won by single-digit margins. Woof. Which leads me to a theory: In the year 2017, the NBA regular season is better than the the NBA postseason.

Not only do we get to see guys like Russell Westbrook put up video game-like numbers while squaring off against each other (as anything can happen on any given day), the regular season also generates more drama than the postseason does. It hasn't always been that way, but with two almost shoe-ins for the Finals, where's the suspense? While the Warriors looked like an obvious preseason pick, doubt crept in once Kevin Durant got hurt in the second half of the season. Young studs like Nikola Jokic, Joel Embiid, Kristaps Porzingas and Giannis Antetokounmpo flourished, producing gripping TV. Just one of those guys played in the playoffs last year.

Before I enter my predictions, I want to leave you with one thought. Seven years ago, the "big 3" formed in Miami, as runaway favorites. While the league was more open and competitive at the time, the Heat won two championships and made four straight trips to the finals. In 2011-12, the Warriors finished at a horrendous 23-43. Nobody would have guessed that five years later they'd be a super-team. The Cavs and the Warriors' reign will not last forever, and I can almost guarantee that there's a team right now that's making subtle moves, laying the groundwork for their own dominance in five years or less. If you really like basketball, like I do, there are fascinating elements within the regular season, and without much further ado, here are my 2017-18 NBA picks.

Starting with the East, right off the bat, the Celtics are easily the most intriguing team. Just four years into his NBA coaching career, Brad Stevens has already cemented himself as a top-tier head coach in my eyes. His teams have overachieved each of the last three seasons. This year, I'm high on them as a regular season team. This summer, the team added two stars and grabbed a high-ceiling pick in the draft. What makes me hesitant to pick Boston as the Eastern Conference champ is its dramatic roster alteration, outside of the obvious big pickups. Avery Bradley has been a steady staple of the team's back-court, a lock-down defender and an above-average offensive player. In addition to Bradley, the team lost steady role players Kelly Olynyk and Jae Crowder. Who could forget Olynyk balling out in game 7 of last year's East semifinals? The roster changes raise some concerns, but I think Stevens finds a way for the new pieces to mesh, and the team grabs the no. 1 seed for the second straight year.

The makeup of the Cavs is very interesting, and Isaiah Thomas is easily the team's biggest mystery. Putting the questions surrounding his hip injury to the side, at 5-foot-9, Thomas typically needs the ball in his hands in order to create space for himself to get a clean look. Meanwhile, LeBron is a very ball-dominant player, so I anticipate it taking some time for the two to gel together. Nevertheless, the team upped its depth big time with the acquisitions of Dwyane Wade, Derrick Rose, Jae Crowder and Jeff Green. Working against the team is the ever-present friction between LeBron and owner Dan Gilbert, and the mystery surrounding LeBron's future (Does he leave Cleveland again?). Still, this team is propelled by LeBron and the plethora of talent surrounding him, and there's an extremely low chance that it falls below the 2 seed.

There's a big gap between Boston + Cleveland, and everybody else. Washington and Toronto's cores return for another crack at the two top-seeded teams, while the Bucks try to jump into the next tier of competition. The hits that Chicago, Indiana and Atlanta took this offseason make room for teams like Detroit and Charlotte to rejoin the playoffs after missing out last season. I like Andre Drummond and co. to have a bounce-back year, and I love that they upgraded from Caldwell-Pope to proven vet Avery Bradley. I also like what Charlotte did in the draft, swooping up Malik Monk. The Kemba-Monk combo could emerge as one of the league's most exciting back-courts to watch (a la Lillard and McCollum?).

The conference's last spot is up for grabs, and ultimately I think it will come down to whether Philly wants it or not. If the last stage of the process means adding one more lottery wing player, I wouldn't be surprised if the team sits Embiid and Simmons for extended periods of time if either faces an injury. The team could accelerate expectations early, forcing Philly to go for it this year. My big concern with them, moving into the future, is that very few of their players have grown their games in a winning culture yet. Fultz and Simmons' college teams struggled mightily, and Okafor, Embiid and others have been brought up in an adamant losing culture in Philly thus far. Philly remains a mystery. If it tanks yet again, Miami will be ready to jump back into the playoffs.

Left out are the rebuilding Bulls, Pacers, Hawks, Magic, Nets and Knicks.

Regular Season Eastern Conference Standings/Playoff Teams
1) Boston
2) Cleveland
3) Washington
4) Toronto
5) Milwaukee
6) Charlotte
7) Detroit
8) Miami

The potential for the West is much more glaring. I won't waste your time talking about the Warriors', you'll hear plenty about them everywhere else. The race for Golden State's top challenger intensified this summer. Houston added Chris Paul, a move that I actually am not very high on. Harden blossomed in his new role at point guard in 2016-17, having the best season of his career. He didn't mesh well with Dwight Howard (who does?), but I am very curious to see if he can coexist with another superstar that demands a share of the team's offensive workload. Head coach Mike D'Antoni engineered an exciting offense in his first year with Houston, however he hasn't been the greatest healer when dealing with star players not getting along. Remember the disaster in LA? Or dealing with Carmelo in NY? Houston is definitely a playoff team, but I wouldn't be surprised if team chemistry is off combining two ball-dominant players that haven't always gotten along with their teammates.

Sam Presti continues to shine as a top tier GM, turning Serge Ibaka into Paul George over the course of one year. PG13 is a great add, and if he and Westbrook can gel together immediately, it will be reminiscent of the Westbrook-Durant days. I like this team a lot, however I'm not sure what Carmelo brings at this stage of his career. His defense has regressed in recent years, and he certainly won't be gunning the same amount of shots he's had at any point in his career. If he embraces his role as the Butler to Batman and Robin, and contributes on the defensive end, he could really open things up for their offense, taking some attention off George and Westbrook. In order for this to work, Westbrook is going to need to put more trust in his teammates, which should be easier for him to do with two potential future Hall of Famers on his roster.

The darlings of the dance come April will be Minnesota and Portland. Portland looks to take another step of growth together. Having Nurkic for a full season will be a big plus. I picture Lillard and McCollum having their best year yet together, as they are now more accustomed to playing together, as well as the pressure of preseason expectations. In fact, there may be less pressure on them considering the chatter surrounding other teams that made more noise this summer.

For the first time in 14 years, the Timberwolves will make the playoffs. After stealing Jimmy Butler from the Bulls in exchange for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a bag of chips, and reuniting Butler with the coach that grew him in Chicago, things are looking up. Butler-Wiggins is going to be a shutdown wing-combo on the defensive end. Karl-Anthony Towns is going to have a big year with former Bull Taj Gibson by his side doing the dirty work. The Wolves also added Jeff Teague and Jamal Crawford; they're going to be very well-rounded. This team is scary good and with Towns (21), Wiggins (22) and Butler locked up for the next 3+ years, this team isn't going away anytime soon.

All that being said, the top challenger to the Warriors is once again going to be the Spurs, as long as Kawhi stays healthy. I love the signing of Rudy Gay. For years, teams have attempted to make Gay their no. 1 or no. 2 star/scoring option, and on a good team, he isn't that. Now, he's ready to be a role player and contribute more as a well-rounded wing. If he's your no. 3 or no. 4 scoring option? Lookout. I also think LaMarcus Aldridge has a bit of a bounce-back year. I trust Pop's assessment in wanting to give him an extension. I won't question the move for now.

The last two playoff spots will be up for grabs, with a handful of teams in the mix. I've been skeptical of New Orleans for a while, but I'm very intrigued to see the Boogie-Brow combo together for a full season, given a summer to prepare together. I also like the acquisition of Rajon Rondo, who may be a little underappreciated at this stage of his career. Coming out of UCLA, I looked at Jrue Holiday as more of a shooting guard than a point guard, though he has put together a very nice a career at the point. I'm curious to see what he does playing the scorer to Rondo's distributor. I also love the idea of going big while the whole league's going small. I like creativity, and willingness to challenge the system, and for that I applaud New Orleans' front office.

The poor Jazz, after years of mediocrity, built something special last year, but had Gordon Heyward leave. They still have Gobert, who will be an All-Star this year, and I like Favors; they'll be alright, but I doubt they edge out other teams.

The Nuggets added the ever-consistent Paul Millsap to pair with Jokic in the front-court. The Nuggets still have a lot of depth with Wilson Chandler, Gary Harris, Will Barton and Kenneth Faried, and have some trade chips if they want to add another big piece. I like Jamaal Murray a lot, and Emmanuel Mudiay still has a high ceiling. I think it comes together for Denver and they're back in the playoffs for the first time in five years.

It seems like each year, people write off Memphis, and maybe I'm wrong again, but I don't anticipate seeing them in the playoffs this year. I like the Ben McClemore pickup a lot, though. This year, I'm also writing off the Clips. The team tends to deal with a handful of injuries to significant players, and Chris Paul won't be there this time to right the ship.

Even the non-playoff teams are going to be fun to watch. The Lakeshow is back, and Lonzo's Lakers are going to be exciting. I like their future, but don't think they're ready for primetime yet. The Suns have a very bright future, with Devin Booker, TJ Warren and Josh Jackson. I also love the Alec Peters pick (a former classmate of mine at Valpo). The guy plays with an unbelievable amount of heart and is going to find a way to be an impact player in this league. Dallas should be about the same as it was last year, maybe a little better. Even in year 20, Dirk's still ballin'. And while the Kings have been well, the Kings, for years, they had a good draft and have some fun young players.

Regular Season Western Conference Standings/Playoffs
1) Golden State
2) San Antonio
3) OKC
4) Minnesota
5) Portland
6) Houston
7) Denver
8) New Orleans

Awards

Rookie of the Year- While I expect Josh Jackson and Lonzo Ball to have the best careers among a deep draft 2017 draft class, I expect Malik Monk and De'Aaron Fox to have the biggest immediate impacts in the association. The Kentucky duo is very NBA ready. My bet says Fox puts up great stats on a lousy team, good enough for the 2017-18 Rookie of the Year.
Defensive Player of the Year- Last year's Defensive Player of the Year Award selection was even more laughable than the creation of an off-season NBA Awards show (which ended up being decent entertainment). Draymond Green winning DPOY over Kawhi is one of the most egregious award selections in recent memory. Kawhi is far and away the league's best defensive player, two-way player, and maybe the game's best night-to-night player. What Draymond did on the defensive end last year is far less impressive than how Kawhi shutdown scorers every single night. Draymond is on one of the best offensive teams in NBA history. He's able to save his energy for the defensive end. The Spurs are super Kawhi-dependent, he carries them offensively and defensively. Kawhi can't save energy on either end of the floor. What makes the selection worse is that Draymond was fourth in the league in technical fouls, which translates to free points for the other team. How can the DPOY give away free points? As writers continue to salivate over Draymond as one of the league's best quote-machines, you have to wonder if members of the media favored him and his openness with the press over the nearly silent Kawhi. Kawhi is going to only get better defensively, and this year the press takes better notice of it.
Sixth Man of the Year- Jamal Crawford at age 37 wins his last Sixth Man of the Year award. Honestly, this is a weird award to make a prediction for, so I'll go with the proven vet in an opportune situation for him to shine one last time.
Coach of the Year- Coach Tom Thibodeau could up Minnesota's win total by 20 this year. I like his chances.
MVP- This is the year that fans and voters embrace Kawhi as the league's new alpha dog. Westbrook doesn't average a triple-double again, Harden's numbers dip some and LeBron is past caring about the regular season. Kawhi rises. My long shot pick: Giannis.

Conference Finals
I could have the generic Finals pick. But what fun is that?

The Kyrie vs. LeBron story is going to be a lot of fun. This will be the most exciting Eastern Conference Finals in a long, long time. I can envision a scenario where Boston wins, but for now, I'll take the safe, less exciting pick in Cleveland.

In the West, I'm going balls to the wall again. If Kawhi's healthy, the Spurs prove to be the perfect kryptonite to the Dubs. The Warriors finally catch some bad breaks in the playoffs (Do Durant/Curry stay healthy? Could Draymond get suspended again?), and have a tougher time making it through the West than they have in years prior.

Finals
San Antonio beats Cleveland for the same reason I thought they would last year. Spurs have caught bad breaks the last two years and this year, it all comes together.

I won't spend more than three short paragraphs predicting the postseason, but I won't for the reason expressed earlier. Even if I'm wrong on my picks and the playoffs suck, there should plenty to keep you entertained this regular season if you like basketball.

NFL Preseason Talk with Jordan Morandini

The great Jordan Morandini stops by to talk preseason storylines, regular season expectations, fantasy, and much more!

Don't Let ESPN Paint Your View of 'The Finals'

Photo via Associated Press.

For months basketball fans have eagerly anticipated what many call, "the start of the NBA season."

After seven months of regulated competition, we are yet again left with the same two teams that have played in the last two NBA Finals, a conclusion that surprised hardly anyone. For months, we've been force-fed this narrative that the Finals will justify the lackadaisical and equally tedious NBA postseason and regular season (which I actually personally enjoyed as a basketball fan).

For months, ESPN has ran countless talk shows debating the height of LeBron's greatness and legacy, while billing the Cavs-Warriors 'rivalry' as the best thing since Bird's Celtics and Magic's Lakers owned a majority of the '80s.

Now, the mainstream media has created a narrative that the Cavaliers are heavy underdogs against the Warriors and that if LeBron pulls this off, maybe, just maybe he becomes the best to ever lace them up.

The problem though? It's all professional wrestling.

Here's how ESPN in the year 2017 tends to operate
There's less emphasis on reporting, and more emphasis on shock value. It's why they've bumped the morning Sportscenter to ESPN 2, while moving First Take to primetime. It's why they cut dozens of reporters two months ago, while paying Stephen A. Smith well over $3.5 million to shout his opinions. It's why they've turned two different Sportscenter hours into opinion-shows hosted by Scott Van Pelt, Michael Smith and Jemele Hill.

ESPN strategically uses its various opinion forums to promote the sports it has the rights to air. In other words, ESPN doesn't have any NHL shows and spends little time talking about hockey on its opinion shows, because ESPN doesn't have the rights to air NHL games. Instead, ESPN has invested a great deal of money into the NFL and the NBA. The network wants people to watch and to talk about both sports, because good ratings are going to benefit the mothership, as well as the league.

It doesn't mean anything to ESPN what the Stanley Cup ratings are, because its money isn't involved there.

Nevertheless, ESPN is going to push narratives and talk about the sports the network has on its various debate shows. For example, I can recall a day last summer when ESPN had the Cubs and Dodgers playing on a Wednesday Night Baseball game. That entire day, morning and afternoon talk shows posed the question: Is Jake Arrieta better than Clayton Kershaw? with "be sure to watch the Cubs and Dodgers tonight on ESPN!" ad spots in-between. However, neither pitcher was scheduled to pitch that night.

ESPN looked for the most interesting debate regarding the two teams and conveniently used it to draw interest to the game, while leaving out one minor detail. Is this deceptive? Manipulative? I don't know. But to some extent, it shows us that ESPN is capable of crafting whatever convenient storyline it wants to help sell the product.

Meanwhile, many of the debaters on the network's opinion shows are encouraged to create hot takes. Whether or not they believe in them, these opinion people will say outrageous or outlandish things to create controversy or conflict. Good or bad, the audience will react to and talk about the figures that share loud opinions. So in addition to these shows serving as product promotion, they're also a form of self-promotion for the writers.

FS1 has been trying to replicate the model of ESPN's opinion shows, snagging some of ESPN's exiled talent. Now FS1 is trying to compete with ESPN for the attention of afternoon viewers looking for the same amount of buzz and controversy. But that's another story.

ESPN's attempt to hype the Finals
Between the Conference Semifinals and the Conference Finals, 30 games were played. Only five of them were single-digit games (one of these likely would not have made this list, had Kawhi not gotten hurt). The rest? Blowouts to various degrees.

But wait! It gets good soon! Remember last year's awesome NBA Finals? One of the best series ever???

I do remember last year's Finals, but not in the way we are told to remember it. The smallest margin of victory in the first six games? 11. The average margin of victory among those first six games? 20. ON AVERAGE, TEAMS WERE WINNING BY 20??? In the first six games of a series played by the NBA's new great rivalry? Two of those games were decided by 30 points or more.

Last year's Finals were not awesome. After the two teams took turns blowing each other out, we got one thrilling game that changed the history of Cleveland sports. But even then, Golden State looked gassed and Curry, the league's MVP, was atrocious, shooting a measly 31% on 6-19 shooting.

If the third part of the Golden State-Cleveland trilogy wasn't enough to hook you into watching the Finals, do not fret! Because ESPN found another moneymaker.

I feel bad writing this, because LeBron is without a doubt an all-time great player and physically-gifted freak and I don't want to take anything away from what he has accomplished as a basketball player. But given the circumstances, I have no choice but to highlight the next tactic of ESPN's marketing scheme.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar may have been the greatest basketball player to ever play when he retired. But once he started to age and Magic and Bird arrived, the young duo became the selling point of the NBA in the '80s. Once their careers came to an abrupt ending, Jordan became the new face of the league. Suddenly, he was the new hot thing, and to his credit, he didn't disappoint; he rightfully earned the unofficial 'GOAT' title. Years later, talk radio hosts would ask, Is Kobe better than Michael? which transitioned into, Could LeBron become the best ever?

From a business perspective, you don't want your product to ever jump the shark. You don't want people to ever think that your product isn't as good as it used to be and that you've gone downhill since. Businesses are expected to rapidly grow and rapidly expand. Each new iPhone is supposed to be better than the previous one. So naturally, the NBA wants people to think that it hasn't peaked yet, and we are seeing its best product right now. ESPN wants the same things as the NBA.

This is where we insert the If LeBron defeats this super-team, he becomes the GOAT narrative from mainstream media personalities, which also benefits themselves. The fans have seen LeBron in the Finals for seven straight years, and maybe ESPN thinks some people are tired of seeing his teams competing. In most cases, his teams were favored over what appeared to be weaker opponents, such as the elderly Mavericks, the young-and-dumb Thunder, the elderly Spurs and the young, but unproven Warriors. So now it's time to sell LeBron as the heroic underdog, who may complete his quest in passing Jordan by bouncing the new-and-improved Warriors. (And yes I know this isn't the first time LeBron's been an underdog; '07 vs. Spurs and '16 vs. Warriors count too).

ESPN's Basketball Power Index gives the Cavaliers a 7% chance of defeating the Warriors. I have no idea how it arrived at that conclusion. If the Cavs actually did have just a 7% chance of winning, wouldn't Vegas' odds be insane? Instead, they're +210, which equals as a 32.29% win probability for the Cavs, which makes much more sense than 7%. A 1 in 3 chance isn't bad. But even I think that's a little low.

Still, I think this shows that the network is strategically setting itself up for whatever the outcome is of the Finals. If the Cavs fall short, ESPN can make excuses for LeBron (whether or not they are warranted, which they may be; we'll have to watch and find out) with the tired, LeBron just needs some more help narrative (this also allows for the LeBron can still pass MJ topic to live on). If the Cavs win, they'll bill it as the greatest upset in NBA history.

Why the Cavs should garner more respect/Why I expect them to win
Last year, the Cavs' took advantage of the loss of Andrew Bogut, and the Warriors' greatest weakness, their lack of a rim-protector. Once Bogut went out of the series and Iguodala's back started to bother him, LeBron was able to run crazy and attack the basket without much contention. Tristan Thompson bullied Anderson Varejao and any Warrior that tried to play in the paint got crushed. America's sweetheart Steph Curry was disappointing for the second straight year in the playoffs and Kyrie kicked his game up to a new level.

This year? Bogut's gone. The Cavs don't even have to worry about him. Iguodala (the 2015 Finals MVP!) is another year older and could be a step slower; he's already missed a game this postseason.

The Warriors sacrificed some key role players from last year's team for Durant and now have a weaker bench. Shooting was never a weakness for the 2016 Dubs. Instead of improving their weaknesses, they just upgraded their strengths while losing role players as a result.

Though there's an incredibly high upside to signing Durant, the move also comes with much risk. Durant had a serious foot injury two years ago, and the Warriors took a big gamble, losing a lot of their depth. If one of their "Big 4" players gets injured, they could be in a lot of trouble. Durant missed a lot of time with a knee injury earlier this season and missed a playoff game with a leg injury. Knee injuries aren't taken lightly in this league. If somebody gets injured, or Draymond mouths off to a ref, suddenly the Warriors could be in big trouble.

Steve Kerr, who I believe to be an elite coach, sadly is unable to coach for the remainder of the postseason. That's a big loss.

Meanwhile, Kyrie is playing off the confidence of hitting a huge shot in last year's Finals and Kevin Love is playing better than he ever has since joining the Cavs. Tyronn Lue has finally figured out how the Cavs can best utilize Love inside and out. In contrast to the Warriors', the Cavs have upgraded their bench. No more clumsy Dellavedova chucking up bricks, instead, a grizzled, but seasoned Deron Williams is the backup point guard. The Cavs lost nothing and added Kyle Korver, a shooter capable of being LeBron's poor man's version of 2013 Ray Allen.

Let's not forget that the Cavs won the title last year and most importantly, have the best player playing in the series. They're playing the same team that blew a 3-1 lead last year, which added another player that also blew a 3-1 lead last year. We've also seen new-and-improved super-teams come off the rails in the Finals, with the '04 Lakers and '11 Heat serving as prime examples.

It's hard for me to picture the team with the association's highest payroll, with the league's best player as a heavy underdog. I'm sorry. I can understand one's logic that favors the Warriors to win, but 7%? C'mon.

Though the Cavs got blown out Thursday night, I'm not too concerned after picking them to win the Finals in 6. The Cavs still have all three home games and the two teams are still feeling each other out; there's plenty of basketball left to be played. Blowouts seem to be the new trend in the NBA playoffs and I have a theory. There is such a competitive imbalance in the NBA today (with ya know, seven All-Stars playing on two teams) that the top dogs don't play a lot of close games. They're just not accustomed to it. So when another team goes on a big run against them and they experience turmoil and adversity, I'm not sure they're primed to handle it. So we could watch these two teams take turns blowing each other out yet again.

So how great will these Finals be? We'll have to wait and see. At the end of the day, I don't know what's going to happen. But don't let ESPN shape your opinion of what you're seeing. You're smart and you can come up with your own conclusions and takeaways.

Still, regardless of how ESPN sells its product to us, I know I'll be watching.

Before You Send Your Hate Tweets to Jeff Varner, Consider This (Survivor Week 6)

Wednesday night was the most uncomfortable I have ever felt watching a Tribal Council, and the latest add to what is in my opinion, a string of bad episodes of Survivor in what has been a very disappointing season so far. The stretch continued Wednesday, this time however, veering off into uncharted waters.

We would not have gotten to such an uncomfortable place had Jeff Varner not taken us there, but here are some things that we should consider before we consider him a "life-ruiner" of Regina George proportions.

First, some background information. I spend time reading the Survivor message boards each week. There's a relatively sized Survivor online community, however I'm sure those numbers are dwarfed in comparison to the 10 million or so viewers Survivor churns in each season. I never read spoilers, however I was very aware that there had been much speculation over the last two seasons that Zeke was in fact a transgender man. There even had been a newspaper article written at his college about him when he was transitioning. The article appears to have since been deleted, but that didn't prevent people from copy and pasting and screen-grabbing the content necessary to back such a claim. (Why people cared so much about this, or did such in-depth research is beyond my knowledge).

For many fans, it wasn't a matter of if Zeke was trans, but if it would ever be addressed on the show. I'm pretty sure Probst even asked Zeke an open-ended question at the last finale about "change" or "metamorphosis," (which ultimately built up to Wednesday's episode themed around the subject). Nevertheless, some people weren't surprised at all by the bomb that Varner dropped in last night's Tribal Council, more so that he did it. The online community only reflects a small percentage of Survivor fans, so millions watching were actually blindsided. But at the same time, it wasn't like this was some top secret thing that nobody would ever find out about.

Remember, Zeke volunteered to go on Survivor. If you go on a reality TV show that millions of people watch, your life suddenly becomes a lot more public whether you like it or not. If he thought his life was going to be ruined by somebody finding out his past, he was well aware of the risk he was taking by becoming a public figure. 

It's important to listen to Varner's reasoning behind his decision and to understand the proper context. Varner is the only player to be brought back two times after missing the jury in both his attempts. After 15 years of watching Survivor from the sidelines, he was overjoyed to return for Second Chance, a mission that he once again failed, in a more embarrassing manner than the first. Varner knew fans would be skeptical over his classification as a "game changer"; he wanted to prove people wrong and live up to the potential he feels that he has. He was one tribal council away from finally making it to the jury, a clear goal he had for himself since the inception of Survivor 17 years ago.

This entire season, Jeff Probst has been pushing the narrative of "big moves!" and "live tribals!" He clearly wants to see crazy stuff happen, particularly at tribal council. If he didn't, the show wouldn't have had two tribes go to tribal together and there wouldn't be 20 different idols/advantages currently in play at the moment.

So Varner has a piece of juicy information that nobody knows about someone that has been continuously feeding him lies. It started at the Sandra vote and continued at the start of Wednesday's episode, when Zeke promised Varner a spot in the final three (a deal he didn't have to make and he clearly wasn't serious about). 

It's also worth noting that there have only been a couple of players that have returned to play before their season actually aired, Malcolm Freberg and yes, Russell Hantz. Russell wouldn't have been able to last as long as he did, had people actually seen the crap he pulled in Samoa (lying about being a victim of Hurricane Katrina, pouring out his tribemates' water bottles and burning socks to name a few). So here's someone on Varner's tribe that has spewed falsehoods to him and is clearly hiding something else. Varner knows of this juicy secret and wants to use it as some form of proof to instill distrust and stir something up at tribal council.

And this is where I think production could have stopped him.

Prior to the final commercial break before the vote, Varner mentions that he knows of a secret of Zeke's that nobody else knows. Well then, I would think the next question from the cameraman would be, "What is that secret?" to which Varner spills the beans. At this point, production should know what Varner is planning. If they don't want to out Zeke on national TV, wouldn't they talk him out of it? Provide the counterargument that Probst and Varner's tribemates brought on at tribal that made Varner realize, "This isn't a good idea"?

Unless, production actually wanted this to happen. Or, was okay with it happening.

The biggest offense that has been taken to Varner's claim was that he ruined Zeke's public life for all America, sharing a personal secret with millions of viewers watching at home. Well, what if he had ruined Zeke's public life to just six people living on an island with him, that may have had their own suspicions or assumptions already? CBS didn't have to actually air the comment that was made by Varner, if it was as horrible as Probst said it was.

Tribal councils go on a lot longer than we actually see on the show. In fact, this was a longer tribal council than usual. Varner claimed that it lasted over two hours and we saw a very edited version of it. Do you really think that the eloquent speeches that Zeke and Sarah gave flowed out of their mouths immediately? Varner also claims that we weren't shown a comment that Zeke made which prompted Varner to make his comment about deception that he would soon regret.

Varner has also proven to be a bit of a loose cannon in his recent Survivor history. He blew up his own game in Cambodia through a heat-of-the-moment outburst following an emotional challenge loss. We've all done and said things we truthfully don't mean to say and have had to suffer the consequences. However, our consequences don't often result in the loss of a job.

CBS could have easily had a vote and filled the segment with Probst asking generic tribal questions, leading to Varner's departure. There have been numerous alleged rumors, scandals and ugly situations that Survivor has cut out of the edit, swept under the rug and moved on from. These are things few people find out about and can seldom be confirmed. This could have been another one of those instances, if the crime was actually as bad as it was made out to be. But it wasn't.

Survivor ran with the premise of a transgender man being outed on national TV to the public, scolding the gay man that outed him, as if making an example of what no one should ever do in real life. Varner wasn't even allowed to vote and was never offered an opportunity to play an idol. Essentially Probst ejected him from the game for his comment. In my opinion it made for a less interesting tribal, as it could have been a prime opportunity for a blindside to be made while Varner digs his Survivor grave, maybe even becoming a goat someone could take to the end. 

The controversy has since gained national attention (just type "Ze" on Google and see what comes up) and Zeke has had an outpouring of support and love on social media. Zeke's taking interviews in bigger media outlets, and was even featured on The Talk Wednesday morning. It's put Survivor on the front page and gained outside attention, while crafting a tribal council that Probst deemed "beautiful." The show seems to be pretty happy with the outcome of what Varner did, and its enabled itself to be the good guy.

Here's what I think happened. The show approached Zeke after it had filmed and asked if he wanted the episode to air. I just can't picture Survivor airing something its tagging as so embarrassing and so destructive to one of its castaways without their consent. CBS could have stopped the bleeding and prevented all the non-internet fans from finding out. Zeke had to have been okay with this. It seems to be working out pretty well for him, considering the amount of love he's receiving and the fact that his number of Twitter followers has doubled since the airing of the episode, while receiving support from A-list celebrities such as Caitlyn Jenner. Right now Zeke is the most famous contestant on his season. So it can't be all bad, right?

If however Zeke was not okay with the clip airing, then CBS should be held accountable for exploiting this. It's hypocritical to scorn someone for outing someone else, while enabling it to actually be on national TV. In reality, Survivor benefited from the episode. Its result? Having articles such as this one written about it.

As for whether or not Varner did something out of malice? Once again it's important to consider the context. I am not a gay or transgender person. I don't know what it's like to live as one, nor have I ever met someone who is transgender. But Varner is openly gay and as he mentioned, he has worked to help many of his trans friends through various LGBT groups and events in the state of North Carolina, where transgender issues may be most prominent. All I know is that Varner is someone that knows a heck of a lot more about interacting with transgender people than I do.

It's also worth mentioning that Varner knows the history of reality TV. He knows there's never been a transgender Survivor contestant before, so he figures that Survivor is promoting the heck out of this premise, just as the same network pumped up having the first transgender contestant on Big Brother. He assumed that this is something all the viewers were aware of at home and Zeke is telling the cameras about his secret, especially considering that he's already played once before. Varner has no idea what the reaction to Zeke on Survivor will be, as it hasn't happened yet. The problem here? He miscalculated. But production could have stopped him.

Varner over-ambitiously made a mistake, and now is suffering the unfortunate consequences. My plea to you is to lay off of him, as the aftershock has most likely been the worst for him among any of the characters involved.

Survivor Week 4: Revenge is Sweet(er Than Sugar)

So what was sweeter: the revenge or the jar of sugar that Sandra killed? It's time for another Survivor recap.

1) Can we spend less time on challenges? And more on character development?

I shouldn't be forgetting each week who is on the green tribe or what their tribe's name even is. Aubry inadvertently spoke for all of us when she couldn't remember the name of her tribe.

There really shouldn't be two different challenges when there's three tribes. There should just be one challenge for immunity and reward. First place receives immunity + reward, second place receives immunity and third place goes to tribal. I can't believe a tribe that comes in second even gets reward, even if it is a diminished form of what the winner's get. Then it becomes "don't come in last", when there should be more incentive to finish first in the most important challenge.

In addition to that, a greater number of challenges produces less thrilling results. It reduces the probability of the weaker tribe winning. This seems to be how the green tribe, despite losing the last two reward challenges, is still untouched. Five of the tribe's members have yet to go to tribal council and claim their torches. On the flip-side, the one time that the blue tribe comes in second, they're sent packing for tribal council. Once again, another bad shake of things for the tribe.

I think there's more interesting stuff going on but instead we're stuck with this weak blue tribe, the original members of Mana. I'm not saying rig the challenges so we see more of the green tribe, but how about cut the reward challenge and then give the viewers an extra ten minutes of camp life and confessionals?

2) The show's gameplay has not been as exciting as billed yet.

As the show continues to try to push the Game Changers mantra in to our faces, the actual gameplay has been far from game-changing. In fact, it's reverted to the early days of Survivor where one tribe pits itself against the other.

The tribe swap has created an us vs. them mentality among players, as the members of the original Nuku and Mana tribes continue to target members from the other that are in the minority. This was the first week that an original Mana member wasn't voted out. But I find it fascinating that people that were on the same tribe together for just six days are clinging on to each other. Tai didn't need to play an idol on anyone last week. He was safe. So it will be interesting to see who from the original Nuku group will be selfish and put their needs before the group's needs--a group that no longer is physically intact with each other. And for JT, this is what led to his elimination.

3) JT- is he actually the show's worst winner ever? (He isn't)

The biggest problem with all-stars seasons, particularly when some players have better Survivor resumes than other players on the season is that their legacies can take a big blow from what happens when they play again, and then revisionist history is written.

I watched Survivor: Tocantins in the off-season, and was impressed by how JT ran through everyone in the game. He was so well-liked that his adversaries were giving confessionals where they said they wanted JT to win more than they wanted themselves to win. JT played a near-flawless game, and even came back despite a numeric disadvantage at the merge. He played a lot of folks with his southern charm and quickly became one of the show's greatest challenge competitors. And strategically, he made a great move in throwing Stephen under the bus when he needed to and he worked the jury masterfully, earning a unanimous win. If he never plays again, he's a easily in the discussion as a top 10 winner.

But then he makes three clear mistakes over his next two tries. But two of them were risks that had they played out differently, might have been worth taking. Remember, he's already won a million dollars, so now it's like he's playing with house money and is willing to take big gambles. The show pushes for big moves and swinging for the fences, but then laughs at those that strike out.

Should he have given Russell the idol? Absolutely not. But remember, he has no idea who Russell Hantz is. Not everyone on the Villains tribe was an ultra-villain. Had it been Coach or Tyson or maybe even Randy, and they were actually in the minority, the move could have paid dividends. So how could JT know that Russell is who he says he is? Had his risk paid off, he might have been in the best position out of anyone in the game and we'd be talking about him as the first ever two-time winner and indisputable GOAT.

Last week JT gambled on Brad being loyal to him. His hope was to idol out Sandra. Though it was in his best interest to get rid of Sandra, it was in the best interest of the other tribe to pick off the team's strongest member so they can beat them in challenges. Had Sandra gone home? JT has Malcolm at his side who was close with Aubry and suddenly he's got numbers while the tribe stays strong. Should he have stuck to the tribe's original plan in retrospect? Absolutely. He clearly made the wrong move two times, but we shouldn't come down too hard on the guy for wanting to play the game hard and wanting to produce exciting moments for the show. He's basically been playing with nothing to lose the last two times and I applaud him for playing a gutsy game.

As for not playing the idol after being caught screwing over his tribe in the previous vote? That's indefensible. Aubry must have assured him that he was safe. Aubry has to really be on the outs from the other three if she voted with JT and was stunned at the result.

JT did not play Wednesday night's episode well at all and let himself get too cocky, leading to his downfall. But I plead for you not to define JT by his recent blunders, and instead remember the dominant force that couldn't be stopped in Tocantins. And if you want to use JT's blunders as an argument for why Stephen should have won instead, look no further than what happened when Stephen played without JT. Do they need each other? Probably not. Do they make one heck of a dynamic duo that would crush it on The Amazing Race? Absolutely.

P.S. We've now lost three of the season's seven or eight most interesting and popular players. Selfishly I wouldn't mind letting go of someone like say, Debbie, next week... (more on this in a bit)

4) Sandra owned the episode.

Though her team lost, Sandra controlled the vote, and stirred up craziness as only Sandra could. The face she made to the camera during JT's argument with Michaela was priceless, although I feel the actual "sugargate" scandal didn't deliver much.

Though she's in control right now, I'm not feeling great about her moving forward. We all know what Sandra is capable of, but I think she's showing too much cockiness. It's an arrogance that's really off-putting. In her previous tries, Sandra was more sassy than she was cocky. She challenged the cocky players (Fairplay and Russell) and made herself a great antihero. This time she may just be the villain. And just about every villain (not just in Survivor) has its downfall.

5) Debbie's outburst: more Sue Hawk or Brandon Hantz?

Definitely Brandon Hantz. Sue Hawk's blowup in All-Stars was at least warranted. Debbie was acting insanely delusional, just as Brandon was. Though I've made it clear that I'd like less out of the challenges, I did enjoy how they edited this part. I liked seeing them strategize on who should do what part as it was relevant to the story. Even greater, I loved seeing the black and white flashback to what Brad actually said to Debbie. I also laughed when Debbie continued to bombard Brad during the immunity challenge. She sounded like a fed-up, entitled little leaguer.

But man, if you weren't on the Brad bandwagon already, how could you not be at this point? He kept his cool the way an athlete does when Debbie got in his face and started spewing falsehoods. He remained calm and kind. He handled the situation beautifully. And the way that his tribemates reacted when Debbie started targeting him? Everyone had his back. In no way is he a dictator, and in fact, he's emerging as an excellent leader. Though he got a rough edit his first time out, Culpepper had a reputation as a very nice guy as a football player. It's good to see that side of him and to see him doing well. I wouldn't quite yet crown him as the greatest former professional athlete to play Survivor but he certainly is working his way up the list (Jeff Kent remains king).

Debbie handled things as badly and as irrationally as she could. She's easily my pick for the next person to be voted out.

6) I'm intrigued by next week's twists.

As Game Changers continues to glorify itself for its fast pace and numerous twists, I'm in for a new tribe swap. I think the first tribe swap's been a bust and only made the show worse. (This is me being results-oriented). I think going back to two tribes will make things more interesting, and hopefully we get in to a situation where the original Nuku tribe is forced to turn on each other. It will make the show more interesting and hopefully people start to abandon their thin day one loyalties.

Teased in the trailer for next week is "the return of a former Survivor." So what might that mean? I have some (doomed-to-be-wrong) theories:

Theory 1- It's Boston Rob, Rupert or Parvati showing up for a reward challenge. For those that might have missed it, once upon a time Rupert showed up on the Israeli version of Survivor. The tribe that won reward won a day with Rupert, as he came back to camp with them and helped them build a shelter and caught some fish. Could it be an appearance from Rupert or another Survivor legend? Also, it's worth noting that Parvati was out there for several days of media coverage during the season and the show could have found an easy way to incorporate her into a scene. Although I'm not sure how I'd feel about bringing the media out of the press box and in to the battlefield.

Theory 2 (the least interesting and most likely one)- It's Monica Culpepper as a part of a very early loved ones visit.

Theory 3- A random former player joins the season late. Perhaps they finally settled that contract dispute with Brian Heidik and they were only able to get him for two thirds of the season? (This by far least likely).

Theory 4- A player who played on this season returns as a re-up of the unpopular outcasts twist... And it's Malcolm. Production realizes its mistake and fears the backlash from the fans after screwing the season's most popular player. Although I hated the outcasts twist in Pearl Islands, I would totally be ok with this happening. Malcolm got screwed.

After loving the first two episodes of the season, my excitement level has gone down over the last two weeks. Maybe a twist will be a breath of fresh air.

Survivor Week 3 Recap: What the Heck Did I Just Watch?

As zany and gripping as Wednesday night's tribal council was, it was one of my least favorite episodes in the show's history.

So much felt wrong about the twist and the way it unfolded.

1) Two tribes should NEVER go to tribal council together.

Twists can make the game exciting. And clearly the show wants big moves and crazy things to happen. I'm all for tribe swaps. But I don't like when Survivor messes with its perfect formula to create shameless drama (ie: the Tyler Perry idol).

Obviously life isn't fair and neither is the game of Survivor, but what happened Wednesday night was downright egregious. In no way is it fair for one tribe to get to try to vote someone out from the other. This premise strays so far away from the core of Survivor.

A tribe shouldn't have that kind of power over another. These are decisions that should be left in-house. How can someone outwit and outplay the other castaways that they have zero connection too who can vote them out? This was ridiculous.

2) Jeff should have been more clear with the rules for tribal.

While saying "oh by the way you guys are going to tribal together" makes for good theater, it isn't the right way to present a twist. Jeff should have laid out all the information regarding the challenge and tribal council, before the tribes picked who was sitting out. The castaways should know what they're in for before they receive their punishment. This wasn't right.

3) Where the heck did that idol come from and what happened to the challenge idols?

Last week I shared why challenge idols are great. They come at a price. So why didn't we see any talk of idols before the challenge? How come one easily showed up when Tai needed one, when his tribe was down in numbers? Meanwhile we saw no talk of idols on the other side?

Not to mention, I've never seen a more helpful clue for an idol. The clue literally had an "X marks the spot" drawn on to show exactly where Tai could find the idol. It couldn't have taken him more than 15 minutes to retrieve it.

This whole thing is fishy to me and it makes me question the integrity of the game. From an entertainment standpoint, this tribal council would really only be interesting if the tribe that was at a disadvantage had an idol. Otherwise they get voted out 6-5. Seems a little too unbelievable for me.

4) JT's legacy takes a blow and it's not entirely his fault

JT was one of the most likable players ever. In Survivor: Tocantins, there were confessionals of other players saying they wanted him to win more than they wanted themselves to win. Everybody loved this guy.

He made an ill-advised, risky decision in Heroes vs. Villains and made a similar mistake this time, giving too much power to the enemy. But we shouldn't be too hard on him.

JT was in the worst spot among the players. If just his tribe goes to tribal council, it could potentially be him. Now the other tribe's coming with, and if he votes with his new tribe then everyone is going to be mad at him for "flipping" even though he's on a new tribe and needs to protect himself. But he also wants to integrate himself in to the new group. Either way he comes off as disloyal. But that's not fair because this isn't a merge, and the tribes will go back to being themselves in the morning.

Now he's in a terrible spot and will likely be the next boot. Unless the producers save him with an idol.

One of the biggest problems with all-star seasons is that great players and characters can take a big hit to their legacy. Despite everything great they do their first time playing, people will remember the bad. This shouldn't define JT, not by a long shot.

5) Survivor isn't just about big moves.

In fact, Survivor is more about the small, subtle moves. And for myself as a viewer, I don't keep watching Survivor hoping for the craziest moments and biggest gameplay moves to happen. I like all that Survivor has to offer, and the game is just part of it. I'm drawn to seeing people from different walks of life come together and form friendships, coexisting and creating a new society. I like seeing heart (for instance, Adam and Jay crying together over their sick family members).

But sometimes I feel Survivor turns into something more like WWE than reality. It wagers on the big strategic moments and often loses key characters as a result. Wednesday night was a prime example. So was it interesting? I wasn't bored watching tribal in the least bit. But it felt a little too artificial for me to consider one of the best tribal councils ever.

6) We lose one of the best Survivor fan favorites ever far too early.

Whether it was Sandra or Malcolm, one was due to get idoled out of the game once JT revealed the plan to the opposite side. Instead we keep Sierra and Brad? Both fringe players? Poll the fans and ask who they want to see stay and the answer is easily Malcolm and Sandra. We'd rather see JT and Sandra go toe-to-toe, than have an idol mess it all up. We lost one of the few true "game changers" on the season and we will likely lose another next episode.

From what I observed, I didn't find any flaws in Malcolm's game. He got screwed by a twisted twist and he should be furious. Hopefully it isn't the last time we see him on our TVs. And hopefully this is the last twist that happens in Game Changers.

Survivor Week 2 Recap: Idols, Goats and GOATs

Another week, another episode chock-full of exciting Survivor: Game Changers story lines to examine. BUT FIRST, drop your buffs.

1) Switching from two tribes to three can be a game-ender

I understand the thought process behind splitting the tribes in to three, as it can make for a more exciting post-merge game and it can be an easy way to ensure that each character is visible in the episodes. But being on a tribe of just six people this early in the game can be a death-sentence.

It's really easy to find yourself on the wrong side of the numbers in a tribe so small. And it's even easier when there's a tribe swap and the other five people are from the other tribe.

Life isn't fair and neither is the game of Survivor, but this twist screws quite a few players, and hopefully it doesn't come at the expense of some of the show's headliners (more on this later). Troyzan, Caleb and Hali are by no means the stars of the season, but others, such as JT and wait for it... Sandra, could be in trouble (more on this later).

I also won't be surprised if this isn't the last tribe swap of the season. We could see a 2-3-2 tribe format, because at the end of the day Survivor is just one 39-day playoff series, right?

2) Trozyan was the star of the night

When a castaway cries, it's normally a good or terrible sign for their life in the game. Troyzan finding a clue to the idol was a semi-touching moment, and assured that the next time the green tribe (we'll just call them that for now) goes to tribal council will be at least interesting.

The actual action of Troyzan stealthily snagging the idol was hilarious. By far the funniest thing to happen yet this season, and a good job on his part. No one caught him. His tribe wins immunity, he buys time and finds himself an idol. Great night for Troyzan.

And good on the green tribe for not losing the challenge. You wanna talk about getting screwed? Look no further than the tribe that barely got any food and tools and had to start a new camp from scratch.

3) Challenge idols are back

I like the concept of challenge idols and having to make some form of sacrifice in order to obtain an idol. It makes idols a lot more interesting.

It appears you have to find a clue before an idol is planted in a challenge. I like that.

I personally think that they only planted one idol clue in the episode. The show probably wants to capitalize on on the drama of having a player after a challenge idol, and my guess is that the show doesn't want to burn the premise out after just one episode. Besides, if there were three people looking for idols in the same challenge, it might be a little too chaotic and difficult to follow. So the green tribe, being the new, underprivileged tribe got the first clue. Otherwise, I would think JT would have come across a clue in his not-so-subtle search.

4) JT, a 'hero' again

JT's valiant attempt at looking for the idol left him empty-handed while those conspiring against him started planning his burial. But he bounced back tremendously, leading his tribe in catching two goats and passive-aggressively convincing his tribe to let them go. JT and Malcolm really got a nice hero edit here, appearing as two southern gentlemen that don't want to harm innocent animals, and I think this is the start of something.

Malcolm has been clear about wanting to keep physical threats around for his own protection, and what better threat is there than former winner and challenge beast JT? Malcolm can get all that he wanted from Tony, without the craziness, in JT. And I don't see why JT and Malcolm wouldn't get along, they seem to be two very like-minded guys. If it happens, can we call this the "GOAT alliance"?

5) Sandra might be in danger

While Malcolm and Aubry voted in the majority in Tony's elimination, the show depicted them being more in the Tony camp than the Sandra camp. Couple in the fact that Michaela wants it to be known that she is a competitor and she hates losing, and the three former Mana tribe members could vote with JT and turn the tables on Sandra.

I know that Sandra is Sandra, but her willingness to eat a baby goat and a mother goat without any conscience could serve as a symbol for her cut-throat-ness to her tribe mates. None of them want to be the innocent goats led to the slaughter. She was outnumbered 5-1 in the goat decision. Could this foreshadow the slaying of the GOAT?

6) Another strong showing from fringe players

Once again, some of the castaways that fans deemed unworthy of returning showed some potential. Maybe the producers knew something about bringing back Troyzan, Brad and Hali?

Culpepper played a notoriously aggressive game his first time out, but now he's looking like a seasoned vet. Though the tribe is much weaker losing "Beastmode Cowboy" Caleb, Culpepper prevented a Kaoh Rong power alliance. I don't believe Sierra when she says that her and Hali have "no relationship at all" from being on the same season, but I do think their ties don't run as deep as three players from the same season in a tribe of six. Culpepper did a good job of subtly turning Tai against Caleb, while not being demanding. I like where his game is going thus far.

Though Hali finds herself at the bottom of a weak tribe, she displayed some of her abilities as a prospective attorney, providing a sound, logical argument while keeping her cool. She might be able to slither her way in to an alliance with Brad and Sierra, if they can win a challenge or two and buy her some time. Or maybe she'll stumble upon an idol clue on the shore.


Despite a boring vote, episode 2 brought a lot of excitement, thrills and high quality camp scenes.

Does "Logan" Live Up to Its Lofty Expectations? (Contains Spoilers)

*This blog contains spoilers.*

At this point, we all are familiar with the hype surrounding Logan.

The supposed-last Hugh Jackman X-Men film is receiving high praise from critics and fans alike, many saying that it is the best superhero flick since The Dark Knight. Others are clamoring for Logan to receive Oscar nominations for best picture and best male actor. Unfortunately, I left the theater Friday night feeling disappointed that the 10th installment to the X-Men film franchise didn't live up to the buzz surrounding it.

The first half of the movie I was all in. I was loving the ride that Wolverine and Professor Xavier were taking me on, excited to see where it would lead me.

X-23 (AKA "Laura") is introduced and immediately she garners my respect. When a main character in a film is a kid with superpowers, it's risky. It hinges on the child actor's ability to deliver and the director's ability to make it believable and something the audience wants to invest in. I can think of a number of films where too much has been invested in to a child with crazy powers and it doesn't work well (most notably Looper- but that's another story). X-23 is fantastic however, and the whole premise involving her and her complicated relation to Logan, as well as their chemistry together worked very well.

This is the first X-Men film to receive an "R" rating, another facet that added excitement to the film. It provided some newer layers and depths to be explored, but I think the writers ultimately got lost in their new freedoms, which led to a big turning point in the film, which is where I stopped loving the direction the film was going.

This comes as a result of the introduction to X-24; my biggest gripe with Logan. We get a very nice, touching family scene. Heart goes a long way in creating quality superhero films. Moments later however, the film forcefully shifts from a sweet, road-trip story to a jarring horror film. I don't think it was a very smooth transition, and I didn't like what it did with the story.

Forget the fact that a kind, innocent family gets slaughtered for no apparent reason, other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Charles Xavier dies for the second time in the film's franchise, this death being even worse than the first. How many times do you have to kill Professor X?

I didn't like the way that Professor X went out. I don't know why the film franchise felt the need to bring him back, just to kill him again. And if he had to die, I think they could have utilized his death better in the film's story-telling. I didn't feel that the death helped the story and instead, we lost an interesting element to the story's fabric.

So we lose Professor X and enter in one of the most generic, plain villains we can find: X-24. The hero-fights-a-clone-of-himself thing happens a lot in movies, and in many cases comes off as lazy. Wolverine has already fought a number of villains that possess similar qualities to his. In X2, he fights "Lady Deathstrike", a mutant controlled by Stryker that has the same healing powers as Wolverine as well as claws. She's basically a female version of Wolverine. As if that weren't enough, X-Men Origins: Wolverine features Wolverine fighting other members of 'Weapon X' such as Sabretooth and an unofficial Deadpool, who each have the same regeneration powers.

Now we have an actual clone of Wolverine that's being controlled by a similar group that is trying to control mutants. Ho-hum.

I would have liked to see a new villain, a new challenge! A new enemy. Donald Pierce made for a much more interesting villain, but he wasn't developed well. Instead, we get the same old thing. Having a good villain is key to a superhero movie's success.

In some ways, the plot felt similar to that of Iron Man 2, in which Tony Stark has something inside of him that is slowly killing him and he fights a bunch of rogue suits similar to his Iron Man suit. This time around, we're aware that something on the inside is killing Wolverine, but I think this could have been better explained. It's never addressed why, 20 years in the future, he's aged more than he ever has in his centuries of existence.

Also, what happened to all the other mutants? There are hints thrown that they all were killed off, but why couldn't this be more clear? Jean Gray and Scott Summers were resurrected at the end of Days of Future Past, potentially setting the series up for a new trilogy featuring the mutants at Xavier's school. These films can still be made, considering this story takes place in the future, but if a future film culminates in the mutants all being killed, I don't have much interest in seeing that movie.

Another question: what's with the adamantium bullet? X-24 is presumably dead after getting shot with the alloy, but when Wolverine gets shot in the head with it in Origins, he just loses his memory. There are some significant continuity issues here (which isn't unfamiliar to X-Men).

There are some big plot-holes that shouldn't be excused.

In the end, we see Wolverine finally die. After two decades of discussing with your friends how you could kill Wolverine, I find his death to be anticlimactic. Nevertheless, it truly is heartbreaking to not only see Wolverine die, but to know his story arc; to know that he never finds peace or joy in anything in his life. It finally appears that he's found something he genuinely cares about and wants to invest in- Laura. But then he dies.

This didn't have to be the story for one of my favorite superheroes. It could have ended differently. But it appears the writers wanted to create something ultra-dark. Not every movie has to have a happy ending, but I wasn't 100% satisfied with the way this film ended. I think there was more potential with this one.

Whether it's actually the end for Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, time will tell. Technically the studio can always make films that take place prior to the year 2029, so there are some possibilities there. The film set itself up for a future with X-23 and her mutant friends. X-23 has a bright future in a the X-Men universe, but that future would be even brighter if it included Wolverine.

Masterpiece? No way. Logan is an alright superhero movie, but not one of the best, and not even the best X-Men film up to date. I'd give this film a 6.5/10. It wasn't bad by any means, but it did have its flaws. Logan was in my eyes, overrated and I don't think it will receive any Oscar buzz. I think this chatter comes as a result of it only being March, notably a time when there isn't a lot of great stuff out there in theaters.



What did you think of Logan? Did it live up to the hype? Comment and let me hear your thoughts!

Survivor Game-Changers Week One Recap

Survivor added another milestone to its long list of unbelievable television achievements Wednesday night.

Wednesday night aired the show's 500th episode, the premiere of Survivor: Game Changers, and naturally, there is plenty to dissect.

1) Why is it Survivor: Game Changers?

The episode opens with a sweet intro that shows some of the game's biggest personalities making some of the most memorable moves in the show's history, followed by Jeff emphasizing how each member of the cast has changed the game in someway. Okay. So did Hali change the game by being the first female to chop a coconut at approximately 2:02 p.m. on day 2? Did Caleb change the game by being the second contestant to ever almost die in the middle of a challenge? And Brad Culpepper changed the game by being the first man whose wife lasted longer on the show than he did?

"Game Changers" is just a cheesy, generic title, as very few of the game's competitors have anything in common with each other as players. Only a select few can be characterized as "game-changers", while another handful can be pegged as "all-stars." Though some contestants may not appear as worthy as others for a return on an all-star season, I will say however that I was pleasantly surprised with the showing from the cast this week (more on this later).

Jeff proceeds to go in to his typical "this game is all about big moves" spiel that he has grown accustomed to over the past 15 seasons or so. This isn't necessarily true, and it showed last night...

(Also I have no idea why Jeff feels the need to narrate the scramble that happens on the boat every season now... When did that become a thing?)

2) Ciera's sin was playing the game too hard, too fast

When you find yourself in a tribe of 10, the best thing that you can do is stay out of drama, pull your weight at camp, do well enough in the challenges and keep your head down. It's easier to hide in a group of 10 than it is in a group of six (we've have seen a good number of six-person tribes in recent seasons). By throwing Tony's name out immediately, Ciera exposed herself as a schemer. Obviously everybody that's playing on an all-star season is going to be scheming (whoops, maybe not everyone on this cast), but at that first vote, people are looking for a reason to vote someone out; it doesn't matter who, just someone. You don't want to be the person controling the vote at this point. It's only day 3 and there is plenty of Survivor left to be played. Instead, you want to be in someone like Malcolm's position, who gave a good quote about how all you want to be doing is being friendly and having people approach you and want to work with you. Conversations and relationships, especially at this stage of the game, are key.

Ciera should have taken a more hands-off approach, especially considering that she isn't one of the tribe's strongest physical competitors. Unfortunately for her, this may have been her last chance to play. However, I also thought Second Chances would be Jeff Varner's last chance to play.

3) Tony's sin was also playing the game too hard, too fast

Coming in, we knew Tony could find himself in danger early, mainly because everybody had seen the way he played Cagayan and now had a Tony Vlachos scouting report in their back pocket. Initially, I liked the way he started the second half of the episode by pulling Sandra in. Winners sticking together and covering each other's backs makes a lot of sense. But Tony fell victim to his own paranoia. It seemed that he was more concerned with putting on a show for the fans and building a "Spyshack 2.0" than laying low and playing differently. The best players are able to adapt. Tony actually had a lot of people willing to play with him, but it was too hard for him to not play the game aggressively. As a result, the first to players attempting "big moves" had to take the fall.

4) Sandra is the queen

Sandra flexed her muscles once again as the game's best. The biggest key to Sandra's game is escaping the first couple votes. Everybody knows how good she is at playing Survivor, clearly. She also is an all-time challenge liability. Somehow she was able to convince her tribe to vote off the physically imposing Tony and keep her instead. Her elite social game was on full-display.

For Sandra, I don't blame her at all for turning on Tony. She was in on sticking with him until he accused her of plotting against her. She wasn't. After playing the game with two of the zaniest schemers in Jonny Fairplay and Russell Hantz, she finally had had enough and cut ties with Tony. It was the right move for her at the right time, and it appears that she has gained a loyal following in her tribe.

5) The buffs are about to be dropped

After just two votes, it appears that a tribe swap is among us. After watching the Mana tribe lose for the second straight time, I caught myself thinking, "It's time for a mix-up already." Mana looks significantly weaker and without Tony, it definitely appears to be at a heavy underdog. In a double-episode premiere, it's most exciting when you get to see all 20 castaways go to tribal council. I want to see the other group have to make a move and I'm glad the tribe swap is happening now.

It wasn't great for Cirie to be put on the same tribe as Ozzy. Naturally the tribe members are going to side with the all-time challenge stud over the all-time schemer in a one v. one shootout. Hopefully the tribe swap plays itself out in that Cirie and Ozzy land on different tribes.

Everything is about to change and it'll be an entirely new season if there is a tribe swap. The last six days will in many ways, be erased.

6) Strong night from the castaways

Initially looking at the names of the cast, I was in many ways disappointed. 20 castaways are returning for Game Changers, and spots are being filled by Brad Culpepper and Sarah? Can't we bring back real game changers like Lex, Fairplay, Kathy and Brian Heidik?

While I will always hope for more old-school players to come back, I must confess that I was pleased with what I saw from the cast last night. I saw a lot of smart confessionals made by some of the fringe players, particularly Sierra and Culpepper. If Culpepper can sit back and not play the bold game that he did in Blood vs. Water, he could do pretty well. Caleb was good too.

I like Sierra and Hali to go deep in Game Changers, as non-threatening females tend to do very well on all-star seasons. Sierra was a good challenge competitor her first time out and I don't see anyone having any reason to target her. Now she's got the legacy advantage and if she finds herself a good alliance, she'll be in a great spot.

Michaela's performance was not the best in week one. Though she managed to keep her mouth shut for the most part, she did show a bit of her fieriness that she possesses. I don't think she's going to be able to keep it all in the rest of the way if she nearly blew up on day 3, but it's a marathon, not a sprint, and several players have turned it around after a rough showing week one.

We didn't see a lot of interactions involving both JT and Zeke. I think Zeke could be targeted by JT as the last time JT played with an unknown returning player, he got screwed badly by Russell. JT knows Zeke was brought back as a "game changer" for some reason. JT's going to remember what happened and he may plan accordingly with Zeke. I expect him to be cautious if they find themselves on the same tribe after the swap.

Tai was hilarious and fun as always, and it was fun seeing him interact with JT. Once again, I'm reminded of how fun returning players are at the start, and how great it is to see our favorite Survivors interacting with each other.


Overall, I thought it was a very strong first episode for Survivor: Game Changers and I can't wait to see what lies in store next week.

DeShaun Watson Could Be the Answer For the Bears

As I watched DeShaun Watson lead Clemson to not one, but two go-ahead scores late in the fourth quarter of Monday's National Championship game, I couldn't help but dream of a brighter day in the city of Chicago.

Watson was put to the greatest test that any prospective NFL quarterback can ever try: put together a two-minute drill resulting in a touchdown (against Alabama's defense) to win a championship! He succeeded. He also led his team to a go-ahead score earlier in the fourth.

I know a lot of Bears fans that were watching Monday and thinking, could this be our future? Should the Bears pick DeShaun at pick no. 3 overall?

After all these years, the science of selecting a successful franchise quarterback is still a work in progress. For whatever reason, we still haven't been able to figure out what the correct makeup of a Super Bowl-winning quarterback is.

Here's a little update on SOME of the quarterbacks that were selected in the first round, as recently as 2011-2014:

Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, RGIII, Brandon Weeden and EJ Manuel have all struggled to secure starting jobs; all save for Manuel are on different teams than the one that drafted them, and almost all have made the switch to back-up quarterback. Meanwhile, Jake Locker and Johnny Manziel are out of football, and Blake Bortles will have another chance in 2017 to prove himself as the long-term option for the Jaguars.

We get it, picking a quarterback in the first round is risky business. But sometimes the upside is just too good to pass up.

In the world of baseball, the Chicago Cubs found a winning formula by betting on highly touted prospects to carry the workload and compete at a high level at the major league level. The strategy paid dividends, as the Cubs won the World Series and now have a flurry of All-Stars (including National League MVP Kris Bryant) locked up for the next four years on the MINIMUM CONTRACT. Though baseball does not have a hard cap, the Cubs were able to shave off millions to instead spend on important vets like Dexter Fowler, Jon Lester and John Lackey, the final pieces to a championship puzzle.

Regardless of the sport, every team needs to decide where it wants to spend its money, and where it can potentially save money. Over the last three seasons, the Bears wasted an average of $17 million/year on Jay Cutler, which yielded lackluster results. Regardless of how well you think Cutler performed and what excuses you want to make for him, the Bears were an embarrassment. That's $17 million that can be used to shore up other areas of weakness.

If the Bears could draft a quarterback that is at least decent, they could save a significant amount of money at a premium position for the next four years, and then use that money to place talent around said quarterback.

Now back to Watson. Watson is comparable to two recent no. 1 overall picks who have thrived in the National Football League. Both won National Championships. Both were the reason their teams won National Championships. The biggest knock on each has been the nagging question, "Can they do it at the NFL level?", the same that is being asked about Watson.

And now, a brief history of championship-winning quarterbacks from this decade, with our stars in bold:
2010: Cam Newton, Auburn
2011: AJ McCarron, Alabama
2012: AJ McCarron, Alabama
2013: Jameis Winston, Florida State
2014: Cardale Jones, Ohio State
2015: *INSERT ALABAMA QB HERE*
2016: DeShaun Watson, Clemson

I don't want to take anything away from what the Bama and Ohio State quarterbacks have done, but both schools have cemented themselves as juggernauts, with great coaches. Cardale Jones was Ohio State's third quarterback. I won't say that those schools could have won with anyone, but I don't think that their quarterbacks were the driving reason that they won national titles.

In comparison, I don't think Clemson, Florida State or Auburn could have gotten as far as they had without their star quarterbacks; these were the best quarterbacks in all of college football for their respective years. And while earning attention at the individual level, each showed that they could win. Each has proven himself as a winner, a duel-threat quarterback, yet a precision passer.

Jameis is the best comparison to Watson. Through Jameis' sophomore and junior seasons in the ACC, the Seminoles went 26-1 with him as the team's starter. Through Watson's sophomore and junior years in the ACC? The Tigers went 28-2. The last four ACC championships have been claimed by the two quarterbacks.

Jameis also led the Seminoles to a game-winning score in the fourth quarter of the 2013 National Championship game. Their resumes are similar. The only distinct difference is that Jameis had some character question marks surrounding him entering the draft. Since however, Jameis has silenced the critics, appearing in the Pro Bowl and turning the Bucs into a playoff contender just two years removed from a league-worst 2-14 prior to his arrival.

DeShaun could be similar, only without the extra baggage. No character questions have come to our attention, and instead, pieces like this one have been written about his positive outlook on life. He appears to be a great leader.

Jameis is currently owed $4 million/year for the next two years. The Bears could release Cutler, move on and ignore the Tony Romo rumors. Whoever is behind center next year, the Bears won't be winning the Super Bowl. They're not there yet. But they could select an electrifying, young quarterback who could help them make good strides as they use the cap relief to rebuild the defense and place talent around Watson on the offensive side. The Bears have some legitimate pieces to work with now; Watson and rooking standout Jordan Howard could be a fun dynamic duo for many years to come. If they make the right pick here, in two years the Bears could be a serious threat in the NFC North.

Or the Bears could select the best available player at pick no. 3, such as versatile play-maker Jabrill Peppers. Either way, the Bears cannot afford to let the highest pick the franchise has held since 1972 go to waste. The fans are tired of being trapped in mediocrity, and the good people of Chicago deserve better.

It might be time for the Bears to swing for the fences and pick a quarterback that would re-energize and bring new life to a tired fan base.