The Future of Sports

This week I listened to Bill Simmons and Chuck Klosterman debate the relevancy of soccer and baseball and whether or not "baseball is in trouble." It's an interesting subject but they didn't really get to the heart of the matter. Which is this: for my entire life there have three major pro sports: football, baseball and basketball. There are other sports, but there has been a clear demarkation between the major sports and the less popular sports.

The question seems to be, in 50 years (or even 100 years) will baseball be one of the major sports? What will the sports landscape look like in the future?

In order to make predictions about the future of sports I think I need to look back at what sports leagues have been popular and try to gleam why.

• • •

100 years ago, the three most popular sports were boxing, horse racing and baseball. It's hard to find definitive numbers but it's clear those were the big three in some order in the early 1900s. 

The reason that horse racing and boxing were popular is gambling. And also, lack of other options. But gambling. From the 1910s to 1960s, baseball remained popular, but horse racing and boxing dipped. Other forms of gambling came around. Horse racing and boxing weren't suited for TV. Also, I think a structure to the season, the regularity, helps something take hold. Plus, as we see what takes their place (football and basketball) it becomes obvious that team sports and athleticism is more interesting to the public than animals or fighting. 

As the chart shows since the 1960s, football has reigned as the most popular sport. Super Bowls are the most watched events in America and even regular season NFL games outdraw World Series games.

Even in recent history, as Klosterman and Simmons noted, the most famous athletes are basketball stars. So why has football been the most popular?

I think it's the physicality and the rarity. There are other reasons. The team fandom is stronger than other sports. And parity helps keeps giving fans hope. Plus, fantasy football has welcomed a new generation.

But the things that make football totally unique are the unbridled physicality—no other sport allows let alone encourages you to crash into another player as hard as you can. And because there are only 16 games, each one feels monumentally important.

Consider the fall of baseball. Not only is each moment generally pretty boring, but the games don't matter. The best teams lose 50 a year.

• • •

Today, it's still football, basketball and baseball. But football and baseball have unique problems. Let's start with football. Despite reports that the kneeling protests were hurting the sport, here's a quick breakdown of the NFL ratings in 2017:

So people are watching less traditional TV (as streaming options expand) but when they do, NFL is still king. In fact, when you look at the top 100 broadcasts in 2017, 44 were NFL games, including all the top 5.

So why are people skeptical of the NFL's future? It's not the flag. It's the effects of the physical nature of the game. It's CTE. Every year there are more suicides. It's concussions. It's players being paralyzed on the field.

Many people, myself included, love the NFL. But how many players have to kill themselves or be paralyzed before a majority of fans stop supporting the game? What happens when someone dies on the field? The league is trying to make the game safer, but hitting is the game. It's why people love it. And millions of people aren't going to tune into flag football.

Youth football is already on it's way out. In 50 years how many parents will let their kids play football before they turn 18?

Baseball has nearly the opposite problem. It's too boring. It's not designed for short attention spans. It's on all the time with no significance. The ball is hardly in play. Once again though, the flaws are inherent to the game. I mean, you could change the schedule to 20 games a year, but they won't.

• • •

So what will people be watching in 50 or 100 years? Quickly I'll recap the second section above with a rough timeline of what made a sport successful from 100 years ago to present:

• Gambling
• Lack of other options
• Team sports
• Athleticism
• Physicality
• Not boring
• Rarity

That list will be helpful but I also think it's important to be forward-thinking and try to extrapolate features of a sport that might be beneficial over the next 100 years:

• Accessible for short attention spans
• Global popularity
• Parents want their kids to play it

I think the 1st and 3rd items on that list are self-explanatory. Global popularity was brought up by Klosterman and I think it's a plausible appeal in the 21st century—that technology has made the world connected and a sport that is played around the world could benefit from that.

It's hard for us to imagine that anything could be radically different in 50 years, despite this absolutely being the story of the 20th century. But I think we all can wrap our heads around the idea that in 100 years things might be unrecognizable. So I'm going to work on that scale.

In 100 years, I don't think the NFL exists the way it does today. I think because players only get bigger, faster and stronger, and the science around CTE will only get more conclusive, a full contact sport like football doesn't have long-term viability.

I expect baseball to live on the tertiary of the sports world, like tennis or golf does now. People might care about the World Series, but I expect the regular season audiences to dwindle, resulting in a reduction of season length.

So what takes its place?

Basketball seems to be the front runner. It's a team sport with athleticism and some physicality. It's not as boring as baseball. The highlights are accessible for short attention spans, parents have no problem with their kids playing it, and it's popular around the world. Plus, it's already #2 and has unlimited star potential.

Soccer would seem positioned for success. A team sport with athleticism and some physicality. It has moments of excitement and mounting pressure. Only two hours for a streamlined experience. Great highlights. Parents want their kids to play and it's the world's most popular game. The biggest hindrance is the MLS is weak and the ratings pale compared to leagues around the world. But as technology advances, there's really not much difference between watching Champions League soccer and a baseball game in your city. And over 100 years, the MLS could (in theory) become the best league, simply by paying the most and getting the best players.

I also think hockey is a dark horse here. Team sport. Athletic. Not boring. Great in person. The action never stops, perfect for attention spans. The secret sauce here is that if football goes away or becomes flag football, hockey could be the most physical sport. I could definitely see the Eagles, Bears, Patriots and Steelers fans (just to name a few) that switch to hockey once the NFL is no longer what it is now. The counterargument is that CTE is possibly just as prevalent in hockey, but football is getting all the headlines.

Lacrosse or rugby are potential niche sports that could grow to become #3 in 100 years. Rugby (if safer) would seem the perfect football replacement, but that if safer is probably a "no." Less concussions but CTE all the same is my guess.

tl;dr In 100 years, I'd bet on Soccer and Basketball being the two most popular sports in America.

Croatia's Path to their First World Cup Final

Heading into the final matches in Group G, there was a lot of discussion around the Belgium-England match and the incentive to lose. The bracket was already mostly set, and the powerhouse teams were in the top half. Specifically the winner of Belgium-England would likely face Brazil in the quarterfinals while Sweden awaited the loser. Belgium would defeat England 1-0 to win the group and go on to face Brazil. England would face Sweden. But perhaps, the biggest winner in the whole situation was neither Belgium for winning the group nor England for dodging Brazil, but instead...Croatia.

Croatia's first knockout game was vs Denmark, the second place finisher of Group C. Denmark took the early lead but Croatia equalized and advanced on penalties.

You'd have expected their next game to be against Spain, but instead faced Russia, the second place finisher of Group A. Russia was outclassed by Spain but was given a penalty via handball that was definitively not intentional (though he shouldn't have had his hand up). Russia again had a first-half lead but Croatia equalized and advanced on penalties.

And that brings us to today. Before the Cup, everyone expected Germany to win Group F. Instead it was Sweden after the Germans flamed out in the group stage. The other Group winner on this side, Group H, was Columbia. Their star, Rodriguez was injured and couldn't play against England. So England advanced against a depleted Columbia and avoided Germany. Croatia didn't have to play Belgium or Germany or Columbia, they faced England, the second place finisher of Group G.

Yep, three knockout games all against teams that finished second in their group. (Meanwhile, France defeated two group winners in Uruguay and Belgium plus Argentina.)

Could Croatia had beaten Spain in the quarterfinals or Belgium/Germany in the semifinals? It would have been tougher, that's for sure.

But it is worth recognizing how Croatia earned the spot on this side of the bracket. They won their group. They beat Argentina 3-0 on June 21. Flip that result and Croatia would have faced France in the round of 16.

Belgium and Croatia were the only two teams to secure 9 points in the group stage. So Croatia is the only team that's won all 6 games they've played.

Measuring The Best QB Over The Last 5 Seasons

I heard a stat during the World Cup about an oncoming substitute. "He's scored the most goals in the league over the last three years." That initially sounded very impressive. But then I started thinking about it. I hypothesized that by adjusting the length of time and cherry-picking a stat, you can find a claim to match almost anyone. I figured with 5 different QB stats and 5 lengths of time, I could probably find different leaders for 16 quarterbacks. Let's see. (To qualify, I'm using Pro Football Reference's minimum of 14 attempts per game.)

Completion %
Last year: Brees
Last 2 years: Bradford
Last 3 years: Brees
Last 4 years: Brees
Last 5 years: Brees

Passing Yards
Last year: Brady
Last 2 years: Brees
Last 3 years: Brees
Last 4 years: Brees
Last 5 years: Brees

Passing Yards/Attempt
Last year: Brees
Last 2 years: Ryan
Last 3 years: Ryan
Last 4 years: Ryan
Last 5 years: P. Manning

Passing TDs
Last year: Wilson
Last 2 years: Rivers
Last 3 years: Brady
Last 4 years: Brady
Last 5 years: Brees

Passer Rating
Last year: Smith
Last 2 years: Brady
Last 3 years: Brady
Last 4 years: Brady
Last 5 years: Rodgers

Brees, Brady, Ryan, Rodgers, Smith, Wilson, Rivers, Manning and Bradford. That's 9 QBs that have some claim of being the best in a certain category over a specific time frame. Still, not as many as I would have guessed. (It's obviously easier to find a QB that leads a category in a single random season, but that's not something that sounds relevant in a 2018 broadcast. Ex: If a broadcaster said "Matt Ryan leads the league in Yards/Attempt over the last 4 seasons" that sounds a lot more impressive than "Romo led the league in Yards/Attempt in 2014."

It's ultimately a testament to the dominance of Brees and Brady. New hypothesis: if I looked at the time frame before Brady/Brees that there would be a wider array of QBs. I'm going to start my new search to include the 2002 season.

Completion %
2002: Pennington
2001-2002: Warner
2000-2002: Warner
1999-2002: Warner
1998-2002: Warner

Passing Yards
2002: Gannon
2001-2002: Gannon
2000-2002: P. Manning
1999-2002: P. Manning
1998-2002: P. Manning

Passing Yards/Attempt
2002: Green
2001-2002: Warner
2000-2002: Warner
1999-2002: Warner
1998-2002: Warner

Passing TDs
2002: Brady
2001-2002: Favre
2000-2002: P. Manning
1999-2002: P. Manning
1998-2002: P. Manning

Passer Rating
2002: Pennington
2001-2002: Gannon
2000-2002: Gannon
1999-2002: Warner
1998-2002: Warner


Pennington, Warner, Gannon, Manning, Green, Brady, and Favre. 7 QBs. Very surprising. So basically my entire theory is wrong. It's harder to twist stats than I thought.

This would be more fun...

The Warriors are insane. Let's imagine some fun moves that aren't going to happen.

Let's say Durant pisses off Curry and Curry says fine, I'll go play with LeBron.

So you'd have LeBron and Curry on the Lakers with Durant, Klay and Draymond on the Warriors.

The Rockets are interesting already with Harden and Paul and non-stop 3's.

We've got Westbrook and George in OKC, but they need help, how about Anthony Davis comes over? Baby, now we've got a stew going.


In the East, Boston already has Kyrie and Hayward.

All the other stars should go to Milwaukee, Toronto and Philly. If we've got super teams, we might as well have 8 kickass teams.

Cancel the first round of the playoffs and let's just watch that.

Warriors sweep the Celtics in the 2019 Finals.

Cool.

The Results of the 2016 Presidential Election Using The Proportional Electoral College

As I'm sure you all remember, six years ago I fixed the Electoral College. It's pretty simple, instead of awarding states as winner take all, electoral votes are awarded proportionally to the candidates based on what percentage of votes in the state each candidate receives. There are a lot of benefits to this plan:

1. The biggest advantage is the perception that every vote matters. My whole life, elections have focused exclusively on swing states. States like California, Texas and Illinois are ignored because it's a foregone conclusion. Not in this plan. Illinois has 20 electoral votes and they might go 12/8 or 14/6 or 10/10. So there are no wasted votes. Once people realize this, I would expect turnout to go up.

2. Likewise, using the a national popular vote creates the impression that a single vote doesn't matter in a sea of 130 million votes. Also, a national recount would be a disaster.

3. It just kind of makes sense. If we were coming up with a system today, would anyone propose that states should be winner take all. Does it make sense that if you carry a state 49 to 48 percent of the vote that you should get credit for winning all of the state? Proportional makes every vote count. Blowouts matter. If you get 90% of a state you should be rewarded more than your opponent who got 51% of a different state.

4. It actually recognizes that 3rd-party candidates got votes. If we actually did this, instead of requiring 270 to win, I'd just say the winner is who has the most electoral votes as 3rd party candidates make it difficult to get to 270 in a close race.

5. The biggest cultural impact is eliminating the idea of red and blue states. Not sure if you've noticed, but party lines are toxic and I think it would help quite a bit to realize that no states are entirely red or blue, that we're all mixed together, living side by side.

All that said, how would the 2016 election have turned out with this system in place?

(Methodology: I first multiple a candidates percentage of the vote times the number of electoral votes and round to the nearest whole number. 6.48 becomes 6. Do this for all candidates. If there are any leftover electoral votes(this is common), I award them to the candidate that won the state. If there is an extra (this is quite rare) I would deduct from the candidate that won the least votes. In the cases of Hawaii, Texas and Washington, there were faithless electors so Trump + Clinton's actual total is only 531 electoral votes, but I'm awarding all 538.)

Click here to view the full spreadsheet with 3rd-party candidates.

How is this possible? How does an election with winner take all go from Trump 304 - Clinton 227 to Clinton 269 - Trump 260?

Clinton racked up bigger wins in her states. She gets credit for carrying California by a 2 to 1 margin and only barely losing Texas. If you ignore the names involved here, doesn't that make more sense. Shouldn't you get credit for all your votes? It would be like a baseball team giving up 8 runs in the 4th inning and 9 runs in the 7th inning but claiming victory because they had a better score in 6 out of the 9 innings.

Another nice thing about this system, is that it inherently doesn't favor one side over the other. It's not prone to pumping up the Democrat or punishing the Republican. It's simply making every vote count. In a 2020 election, it's just as likely that this system would help a Republican. In 2012, it would have portrayed a much closer election than the Obama 332 - Romney 206 result.

World Cup 2026

So the World Cup is coming to North America in 2026. Great!
They're expanding from 32 to 48 teams to be more inclusive. Great!
They are going to have 16 groups of 3 teams each, 2 group matches instead of 3 for every team. Oh no.

- - -

3 teams in 16 groups, where the top 2 teams advance to a 32-team knockout round?

The first thing this instantly robs fans of is the simultaneous matches to conclude the group stage.

Let's look at a scenario involving a fictional Group with Brazil, Croatia and Tunisia.

Brazil play Croatia first and win. Now it's Croatia vs Tunisia. If you're Tunisia, you know that two draws will get you in. So your best shot is to play super conservative against both Croatia and Brazil, keep 11 guys back and allow zero goals. That's not great soccer or fair or good for anyone.

- - -

Here's another group: Spain, Australia, Senegal.

Spain beats Australia. Senegal and Australia tie. Now it's Spain vs Senegal. They both know that a tie is great for them. Spain gets to win the group, Senegal advances. So they both play conservative and it ends 0-0. That seems super realistic, right?

- - -

So 16 groups of 3 teams is shit. What's the alternative? The obvious is 12 groups of 4.

The top 2 teams advance, that's 24. Then you sort the 3rd place teams and the 8 teams with the most points advance. If that seems familiar, it's what the World Cup 1986 to 1994 when they used the group stage to narrow 24 teams down to 16.

But leagues and clubs are concerned with the total number of matches. So instead of fairness, we're left with money determining the result. Sounds like FIFA after all.

World Cup Math

In 4-team groups, there are 6 matches and a maximum of 18 points, with a minimum of 12 points, that can be earned.

It's impossible for two teams in the same group to each finish with 9 points each. (In 2002, Brazil won all three group matches and all four knockout matches to win the Cup.)

It is possible for three teams to finish with 6 points each, which means a team could get first place with 6 points while another team gets eliminated with 6 points. (In 1994, there were two instances where three teams finished with 6 points each, but because there were only 24 teams with 16 advancing, all teams with 6 points advanced.)

It is possible for three teams to finish with 5 points each, if three teams win one game and draw the other two. This has not happened as far as I know.

It is possible for all four teams to finish with 4 points each, if each team gets exactly 1 win, 1 draw and 1 tie. This happened in 1994. It was the only time every team had the same points and same goal difference.

It is possible for all four teams to finish with 3 points each, by tying each game. This has never happened.

Scoring in Soccer

The very first live post on this site was a bunch of stupid suggestions under the title, How to fix soccer. I rightfully got a scolding from pre-twitter soccer fans. I'll hopefully do better with this post.

- - -

Every World Cup since 1962 has averaged between 2 and 3 goals per match. (The 2010 and 2014 World Cups averaged a combined 2.47 goals per match. That's 1.23 per team per match.)

In 1958, 3.6 goals per match.
In 1954, 5.38 goals per match.
From 1934 to 1950, every World cup averaged between 4 and 5 goals per match.

- - -

I'm not saying that the game is broken or needs fixing. But it's worth noting that scoring is half of what it's used to be. Goals are exciting and important. In doing research for this, I found this from a Slate article:

I agree that fans want close games, of course, but I also think fans like scoring. Not too much, mind you. For example, Portugal just played Spain to a 3-3 draw and I think most people found it very exciting. 12-9 would have been too much, but 3-3 is great. 5-4 is fun every now and again. 

In the NHL this year, teams averaged 2.97 goals per game. That's per team, so we're talking 6 goals per game. Some games you get 1-0 nailbiters, some are 7-6 barnburners and some are 5-0 blowouts. But six goals a game works nicely. The arena explodes every time there is a goal. At 6 per game, the rarity does not diminish the excitement. (A good example is a NBA basket. There are 40 made per team per game. So you're not exploding out of your seat or crying if your opponent makes a shot. Likewise in tennis.) 

In the NFL, teams average about 2.5 TDs per game. Same story as hockey. Every TD matters a lot. Games are fun when there are 4 and 5 touchdowns per team, and still fun for the rare 14-7 game too. 

So for soccer teams to be averaging 1.3 goals per game...it's a little weak. Especially when you throw in that there are straight draws after 90 minutes. The possibility of a 0-0 draw is thoroughly present. 

I think the numbers show that increasing from 2.5 goals to around 5 goals per game would be healthy for the game. And it would actually keep it in line with its historical roots. 

- - -

And one more thing...the Penalty. 

I tried to find out how many goals are typically scored via penalty. Hard to find, but I found a video showing "all 12 penalty goals from world cup 2014". So if you take out the 12 goals scored via penalty, the average for 2014 drops from 2.67 to 2.48 per match. Goals via penalty account for 7% of all goals at the last World Cup. 

Here's the thing. Goals scored in the run of play are beautiful and exciting and either well-earned or a huge mistake from the opponent. Goals scored via penalty are not beautiful, not that exciting because 76% are converted and often come down to a judgement call—where well-earned or mistakes may not even come into it. 

It also often just doesn't make sense. A little push or trip that five feet away would be given a difficult contested shot from 25 yards is now given a gimmie uncontested shot from 12 yards. Combined with the overall low-scoring nature of the current game, one judgement call can decide the whole game. 

So if I was in charge, which I'm not, I would try to increase scoring in the run of play and decrease the impact of goals via penalty. 

- - -

Let's start with the penalty. In the NFL, there used to be two kinds of face mask penalty. A severe penalty for intentionally grabbing the face mask and a milder penalty for accidentally grabbing the face mask. It worked pretty well. Let's bring that idea to soccer. Instead of the current 12-yard spot, let's have 2 spots. One from 10-yards for obvious, blatant penalties (intentional handballs, reckless slide tackles) and one from 16-yards for more inadvertent fouls (unintentional handballs, pushes and trips that were attempts on the ball but missed). 

The exact distances would warrant testing but the goal of this is simple. The odds of converting a penalty should be commensurate with the odds of scoring on the play when the infraction occurred. If a defender wipes out a player on a breakaway, the offense should be given a kick with 90% conversion rate. If the defender was going for the ball in a normal offensive set, the offense should be given a kick with a 50% conversion rate. 

This 16-yard spot would become more exciting as goalies would be able to wait longer before diving. It's a more challenging kick and would have more inherent drama on each kick. 

- - -

As for increasing scoring in the run of play...there are lots of possible solutions. The obvious is to increase the size of the goal, even by just a foot on each side. It's currently 24 feet. A 25 or 26 foot goal might be perfect. 

The game is good and doesn't need radical changes. But any game warrants looking at ways to make it better. 

IHOB

It's not very often that an advertising campaign actually gets people talking so I thought I'd weigh in on IHOB. Without actually knowing any inside information, I'm 99% sure I know what happened.

It starts with someone on the client side not even in marketing. They're looking at their numbers and they can see that they're doing okay at breakfast time, but slow down at lunch and dinner. Makes sense, of course. But they want more revenue so they tell their Marketing department to get more people in for lunch and dinner.

Marketing looks at the menu for a minute, and decides why not burgers? They augment this decision with charts of burger sales and think that if we can increase our burger sales even by 1-2%, that's a successful campaign. So they get approval from their bosses. They start working on new burger recipes and then tell their Agency: We need an advertising campaign to sell more burgers.

The creative team goes to a meeting and is told to come up with a campaign to sell burgers. There's a lot of eye-rolling but it is what it is. They were most likely told it's a small budget but they want to get people buzzing.

Creatives go off and come up with a bunch of ideas and this one probably started as a sarcastic joke. Why don't we just change the name to International House of Burgers. And then their partner was like, wait, we could just flip the p to a b. So they present it and everyone agrees this would be a bold thing that could get people buzzing about their burgers. It's a stunt that hasn't been done. And remember, their goal was to get people buzzing about their burgers.

So it all gets approved and they start with a teaser of We're changing our name. The public sees this and starts buzzing. This is bold. People are interested.

And then yesterday, IHOB is revealed. People are roasting them. Because it's really dumb to go to IHOP for burgers.

The creative team did their job. The marketing team on the client side had good intentions. So where did it all go wrong?

They came with a great solution to the wrong problem. The problem is you want more sales. And yes, it's better if they come at lunch and dinner. The problem is not "we're not selling enough burgers." 

If they had come to the creative team with a blank canvas: "let's change our image" so more people come in, that could have worked. Maybe they'd change their meaning to some other interpretation of IHOP, maybe they change it to International House of Brunch, or maybe they come up with food solutions, lean into the international side perhaps. There's lots of solutions to that problem. 

- - -

At they very least, it would make sense if their burgers actually were international. But they're not. Same flavors you've been seeing at Chili's and Red Robin your whole life. So yeah....

- - -

I think International House of Brunch would have been really smart. It's still on-brand, but could appeal to younger audiences, and would have solved the lunch/dinner issue too. 

Solutions to Eliminating Kickoffs in the NFL

Kickoffs are the most dangerous play in the NFL. They also happen to be boring and stupid and bad.

Between the extra point and the kickoff that follows, two of the most boring plays happen back to back. I think most fans would be completely fine with just starting the ball on the receiving team's 20 or 25 and be done with it. Except for one thing. The onside kick. In the 4th quarter, being down anywhere from 9 to 16 points doesn't mean the game is completely out of reach. You still have hope your team can score, get the ball back via onside kick and score again. It's unlikely, but you have hope. Hope is good for fans and it's good for the NFL. So we can't just eliminate kickoffs entirely, we need to account for hope.

(Another thing that I enjoy is the surprise onside kick. It was used to great effect to help the Saints win their only Super Bowl. While this is incredible, it's really a perk, not a must-have.)


Option #1: The Schiano Proposal

As detailed here, the kicking team would have a 4th and 15 at their own 30. Most of the time, they would opt to punt. A punt is safer than a kickoff so this an improvement. And it gives teams an opportunity to go for it late in the game. I would argue a 4th and 15 (or even 4th and 10) is more exciting than an onside kick. It even preserves the opportunity for a surprise onside kick throughout the game by performing a fake punt.

Overall, this is a safer option over the current kickoff rules. However, mostly we're just swapping kickoffs for punts. In terms of excitement, it's not a huge difference.

Option #2: Automatic Touchback With Option To Go For It

This would be a simpler version. Instead of a kickoff, the receiving team simply gets the ball at their own 25. No fanfare, no time wasted, just back to the action. However, at any point, the "kicking" team would have the option of taking the ball, let's say on their own 27 facing a 4th and 13. Just like the proposal above, you could in theory never take the ball out of your quarterback's hand, from a touchdown, two-point conversion, 4th down conversion and subsequent final minute drive.

In short, this keeps the spirit of the first idea, sacrificing the ability to have surprise fake punts with the trade off of eliminating 8-10 punts from the game.

Option #3: Automatic Touchback with Field Goal Conversion

Again, this keeps the automatic touchback unless the kicking team wants to attempt an onside kick. This replaces onside kicks with a 60-yard field goal that is worth zero points but a make wins possession. Make the kick get the ball on your own 40. Miss the kick give the other team the ball on your own 30.

This keeps the importance of a kicker and I'm guessing all the kickers would be in favor. Would be interesting if a kicker was feeling great in warm-ups and told the coach let's start the game by going for it....and then it gets blocked or shanked—would be hilarious.

Option #4: A Hail Mary Kickoff

This is something entirely new, so bear with me. Instead of a kickoff, the kicking team gets an untimed down. I'm thinking starting on their own 10, but that's debatable. When an incomplete pass is thrown it becomes equivalent to a punt, where it must be downed by the receiving team for them to take over possession.  However, if the kicking team advances the ball past the 50 they get to keep possession.

Most plays, the QB would just chuck it as far as they could and you'd get to see sort of a skills competition with strategy throughout every game of the season. Who can throw it the farthest? What about in the 4th quarter, are their arms tired? A sack would be huge! The surprise onside kick version is intact and could theoretically be done on every kickoff. Each chance of completing a 4th and 40 is lower than completing a 4th and 13 (or 10 or 15) but even an incomplete 60 yard throw is a decent kickoff. Would also be hilarious for a team (likely coached by Andy Reid) to get cute and try to convert 40 yards with a screen pass.

That's what I've got. If you have any ideas or opinions, leave them in the comments.

The moment Riley from Paris, Texas became a Rock Star

I saw this live and it was incredible. I've set this video to start at the 5:30 mark. At that moment Riley was just a dude at a concert who didn't even know the words. Three minutes later, he was a legitimate rock star. Though I can't be certain, I have a feeling this moment changed his life.

Burnout

This is a look at the Burnout series of video games. The best thing about Burnout is the takedowns and those were only introduced in the third game, which was the first that I played, so I'm going to start there.

Burnout 3: Takedown (2004 -PS2)

This game was incredible. The best mode was Road Rage where you are just focused on getting takedowns. Here's a nice example. One nice feature was even after you crashed you were able to control your wreck for a second so you could try to take out drivers in your wake. They also had an excellent Crash Mode with levels and multiplier tokens. Road Rage & Crash Mode perfectly done made this game beyond compare.

Burnout Revenge (2005 - PS2)

This game was mostly the same but they introduced "traffic checking" which encouraged you to hit same-way traffic from behind, which previously would have caused you to crash. I felt this took a bit away from the game, making it too easy to drive. Also, they removed the tokens from Crash Mode, so there was less things to aim for. Still, fun road rage and crash mode was mostly intact. The revenge bit was kinda cool, going after anyone who took you out.


Burnout Dominator (2007 - PS2)

They removed traffic checking, which is nice. No tokens in crash mode but overall this was great too. 

Burnout Paradise (2008 - PS3) Remastered (2018 - PS4)

I never played this game until this year. It's totally different from the first three games. It's a mixed bag as they added a lot but something's missing.

First, what's been added. For the first time, free roam driving. Not only that, but a really fleshed out exploration experience. There are jumps to find, billboards and obstacles to smash, tons of hidden areas. It's entirely fun to drive around solving puzzles on the fly of "how do I get up there?" without ever playing an event.

The city itself has a nice variety and is really well done. The game looks great. Road Rage works well (although I do miss being able to control my car after a wreck). I even appreciate the ability to choose the route I want to take in a race, something I've never done. It's fun to take a different route than the opponents and try to beat them there.

The downsides? There's no crash mode. There's a showtime mode where you crash into other cars, but there's no level design. There's no puzzle solving aspect to it. Just bounce into whatever cars appear. Which means every time it's the same. If they had a real crash mode, the game would be a 10 out of 10 for me.

Further, there's not that many types of missions (gone are eliminator races, etc). And 5 times you will upgrade your license and wipe away your progress on specific events. So that feels "grindey" and not well thought out.

Plus, you have to be at the point on the map to trigger an event. So if I fail a Road Rage but have driven across the map in the process, I have to drive back just to try again. A simple replay option would be nice, as would fast travel options. It's fun to drive, but when I want to switch a new car, it's not that great to have to drive more in a car I'm sick of.

Still love the series, just wish there was a better blend of free roam exploration with the events that worked so well before.

Niraj Influenza 2018

DAY ONE

Niraj arrived at Kansas City International (confusingly named MCI) Friday evening. We went straight from the airport to making our own six-packs at Lukas. Then we picked up the boys and took them to dinner at Raising Cane's and played some Lego Avengers on PS4. Finished the night off with some Kingdomino and Codenames Duet. We went 0-3 for in Codenames trying to pass the first mission. We also playtested my own board game creation to surprising success. 

DAY TWO

It's hot in Kansas City so we had to get out the slip n' slide for the boys, followed by some Mario Kart action. Then Niraj and I went to Q39 for some epic barbecue. Here we hammered out some additional rules to improve my game. 

Right after that, Brit, Niraj and I went to an escape room: National Security at Breakout Park Place. Not only did we escape with 9 minutes left..we set the (monthly) record!

After some victory gelato we got the boys and played basketball in the back yard along with more video games. That evening we headed to the Power and Light District. First stop was No Other Pub, a Sporting KC bar (the name is a riff on the teams' slogan No Other Club.) There we played Shuffleboard and Foosball. 

After games we headed over to Flying Saucer for some good beer and food. It started off great with some free pretzels via yelp and some nice beer choices. In a matter of minutes it turned into a mad libs experience. Dave and Niraj were inside FLYING SAUCER eating a REUBEN listening to SMASH MOUTH while a FIRE ALARM was going off. The alarm strobe light went off for the entire hour we ate our food. Still though...Kansas City: free parking, free shuffleboard, free foosball, free pretzels, free fire alarms. It was the first reuben of my life.

DAY THREE

More Nintendo. Then we went to Grant's soccer game. Came back played more mario kart and board games. Lots of games. For our last night, took Burnsy out to Beer Kitchen in Westport. We couldn't decide what to order so we got two sandwiches and split them: Short Rib Grilled Cheese and... the Reuben. Rueben #2 of my life. Beer Kitchen is fantastic...(though they could use a more imaginative name.)

We came back and played one last game of Codenames and we finally beat the first mission on the very last turn with an incredible clue. [Mark = Pedophile]

DAY FOUR

I had to go to work and Burnsy had to fly out so all we had time for was a lunch at Char Bar. A weekend full of good food, good beer, lots of games and fun times with the kids too.

2018 Master Kansas City Barbecue List

I'm slimming this document down to just notes so it's easier to navigate. I don't need to document every time I go to Q39, for example.

Previous Years:
2017
2016

_________________________________________

Elite Tier

Elite tier is best of the best. You're probably going to have to wait in line.

Q39

Mr Burns is a perfect sandwich.

Ribs are 100/100. Half rack of ribs is a great order.

Their brisket is not my favorite. Gotta go ribs or burnt ends.
Ranking of side dishes: mac & cheese is amazing, fries good, potato salad fine, beans not great.

Slap's

Burnt ends, brisket and sausage all great.
Loved the spicy sauce. Brisket plus sauce on white bread was killer.
Potato casserole probably best side I've ever had in my life.
Fries not that great.
I'd put Slap's brisket ahead of Q39 & Char Bar but their burnt ends below those two spots.

 Great Tier

Even though they're not the top tier, I still enjoy these places and will choose to go here depending on convenience, shorter lines, atmosphere, etc.

Char Bar

Burnt ends are first-rate.

Ribs are hit or miss.
Brisket is solid and I love the sauce.
Sides are good too. 

Arthur Bryant's

This is the OG.
Distinctive sauce, huge portions.
Burnt ends too saucy, no char. Still good but not my favorite.
Classic.


Burnt End BBQ

Burnt ends are the star, ribs are good too.
Like the sauce selection, chill atmosphere.
Not as serious. Nice when you just want a sandwich.

The Gates Tier

Gates gets its own tier as might be amazing or it might be kinda bad. I don't know that it's fair to split the difference and just call it great—that doesn't quite capture it.
I've been disappointed with their burnt ends and their skimpy beef on bun.
The double decker beef (above) is legitimately great, the white bread is perfect for brisket.
I need to try the ribs. Fries are just okay.
I'm biased because this is what I grew up with, so I love the sauce and overall flavor.
Sam Mellinger described Gates as "where you might eat the best barbecue meal available in Kansas City but you might also eat the worst." So when I say hit or miss, that's what I'm talking about.

Solid Tier

Jack Stack

Beef burnt ends better than pork—both are not elite.
Like the ribs.
Also liked beans and potato salad.
Good but not life-changing. Confirmed this is not on the level of Q39 or Slap's.

Joe's

The Z-man is the thing to get here.
Overall, their meats run a bit dry.
This place is overrated, but that sandwich is their saving grace.


Danny Edwards 

Only had the burnt ends.
Solid, not spectacular.

_________________________________________

Places To Try

LC's
B.B.'s
Brobeck's
Blind Box