The Best non-Boston Championship Teams

Since Jan. 1, 2000, the city of Boston has won nine championships across the four major sports.

Between 17 Super Bowls and NBA Finals, 16 World Series and Stanley Cups (should be 17 Cups, thanks Bettman), Boston has won roughly 14 percent of them all. That's a fairly high percentage.

Of course, that's still 86 percent of ticker tape parades not involving duck boats. It's been a pretty good run, but there've still been a few cases of being forced to root for teams outside of the greater 617 area code.

Once in awhile, it's not even a bad thing to able to relax and watch a championship event with no rooting interest. Think Steelers-Cardinals in Super Bowl XLIII, the year after 18-1. I still wasn't emotionally recovered from the events of exactly a year prior (I'm still not, if you want to know the truth) and just wanted to watch a good old fashioned football game. And man, did that game deliver. Kurt Warner to Larry Fitzgerald for the lead...annnnnnd it's gone on Ben Roethlisberger's toss to Santonio Holmes. For my money, second best Super Bowl of all-time (right behind this one).

The beauty of that game is that I didn't feel strongly one way or another in terms of who won and who lost. I mean sure, the Patriots had beaten the Cardinals by 40 that regular season (the Matt Cassel year), so it was one of those transitive property things. Roethlisberger hadn't really been exposed as someone with, um, questionable character yet, so it was nice to just watch the game and when it was over, that was that.

But in certain cases, even when a Boston team hasn't been present, there's still a major rooting interest. Mostly for negative reasons (rooting against LeBron, A-Rod, Peyton Manning, etc.), but a few feel-good stories as well (Ray Bourque getting his ring, maybe even the White Sox snapping an 88-year championship drought the year after the Red Sox).

I'm keeping the focus mainly on titles won since 2000, since hey I wasn't alive much before then and didn't have much of an emotional investment in, say, the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers finally breaking through over the Yankees. Consider that an honorable mention, as well as the following:

• 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks (defeated Yankees in World Series, 4-3)
• The Yankees had won four of the last five World Series, and were three outs away from winning a fifth before Mo Rivera gave up a blooper to Luis Gonzalez. This was less than two months after 9/11, so it was hard to root against New York. But in a vacuum this one definitely fits the mold.

• 2012 Miami Heat (defeated Thunder in NBA Finals, 4-1)
• What? Lev was rooting for the Heat? No. But I was able to justify rooting for LeBron with a personal asterisk, as that was the lockout-shortened 66-game regular season. And it was only four years after the Sonics were stolen from Seattle, which was (and still is, as I've pointed out) much too soon. Don't worry, I return to my LeBron hating roots in a few minutes.

• 2003 Florida Marlins (defeated Yankees in World Series, 4-2)
• If this were literally any other National League team, this would crack the top five. It still comes close, thanks to how the Yankees got to this particular Fall Classic. But the Marlins beat the Cubs on the Bartman incident, and it's the Marlins.

• 2001 Colorado Avalanche (defeated Devils in Stanley Cup, 4-3)
• Of course I'm happy for Ray Bourque, but this one hasn't stood the test of time. This was about eight months before the Patriots took out the Rams, so Boston wasn't exactly titletown yet...so they threw Bourque a parade. Sheesh. It would've been better if Boston Rob had gotten a parade after winning Survivor on his fourth try in 2011.

• ? Chicago Cubs 
• This is going to happen in the next five years, and it is going to be spectacular.

And now, without further ado, your top five:

5. 1997 Denver Broncos (defeated Packers in Super Bowl XXXII, 31-24)

Ignore the current incarnation of the Broncos, this was the tail end of John Elway's career as a QB, and he was still chasing that elusive first ring. I was 7 here so I didn't know what rings meant, I just knew that the evil Packers has beaten the Patriots the previous year and I didn't like that mean Brett Favre guy.

4. 2014 San Antonio Spurs (defeated Miami Heat, 4-1, in NBA Finals)

The Spurs and Patriots truly go hand-in-hand, the perfect cross-sport comparison if there ever was one. Two of the greatest players in their respective sports at the peak of their powers (Brady, Duncan) and two of the best coaches (Belichick, Popovich) linked at the hip from Day 1. 

One major parallel might not be the most flattering, but it's important: the dynasties were growing stale. The void between Rodney Harrison flapping his arms around Jacksonville and Malcolm Butler's pick at the goal line in Arizona was nine long, agonizing years with more than their share of heartbreak. 

The Spurs, too, had a decent sized drought between the early years and the proverbial 'cherry on top' championship of their own. They'd swept LeBron and the Cavs' in '07, only to see the Lakers re-emerge with Kobe and Pau Gasol, followed by Dirk's breakthrough and the aforementioned Thunder run out west.

San Antonio's loss to the Heat in 2013 wasn't quite in the Tyree stratosphere, but it was still a pretty gut-wrenching kick to the groin. To LeBron no less, in a full-season, thus taking away the asterisk of no rings in a non-shortened season.

It did, however, make 2014 that much more enjoyable. LeBron's cramping in Game 1 was a great Twitter moment and Pop's trolling at the end of the series (not 3, not 4...5 championships)...I mean seriously the LeBroning movement was all-time. Gold, Jerry, gold! As you'll see down the line here, sometimes it's more than just rooting for a team, it's all about rooting against others.

This comparison is copyright Jake Levin, circa June 2014.

3. 2014 UConn Huskies Men's Basketball (defeated Kentucky in National Championship Game, 60-54)

A brief foray into collegiate athletics, and all sorts of forces of good and evil were meeting up in this one.

Forget about John Calipari for a second, this was UConn's first season in the American Athletic Conference, better known as the hodgepodge of forgotten children from the Big East and Conference USA. The Huskies were snubbed by both the ACC and Big Ten (Rutgers! They chose RUTGERS over UConn!), and were forced to make do in this cluster you-know-what of a league spanning from Storrs, Conn. to Florida to Texas. Gimme a break. 

On the court itself, Calipari and his latest band of one-and-done's were about to win a second championship in three seasons with entirely different casts. Out went Anthony Davis, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist and Marquis Teague, in came Julius Randle, James Young, the Harrison twins and Dakari Johnson. Only a slew of bench scrubs, including Scituate, Mass. native Sam Malone, remained from the 2012 team; this was Calipari stacking the deck as a glorified AAU team with no concept of team-building or year-to-year continuity that used to make college basketball so great.

Got all that? UConn needed to win this one to stick it to multiple facets of the NCAA, which they did, thanks in large part to another native Masshole, Shabazz Napier.

Unfortunately, this win hasn't changed much of the bottom line: UConn remains stuck in the American, and Calipari reloaded in 2014-15 to take Kentucky undefeated into the Final Four, where they did lose to Wisconsin (which wound up losing to another buncha one-and-dones at Duke). But on at least one night in early April 2014, the Huskies were able to keep the world on its axis. And my mind from self-combusting.

States with teams in the American Athletic Conference. Not very American if it doesn't touch the west coast, IMO. Manifest destiny, ever heard of it?

2. 2009 New Orleans Saints (defeated Indianapolis Colts in Super Bowl XLIV, 31-17)

In the fall of 2009, I began my freshman year at URI with a wardrobe consisting of 99.9 percent Boston sports apparel. Championship t-shirts, Randy Moss and Paul Pierce jerseys, you name it, I had it.

But things weren't exactly off to a swimming start for me in Kingston, and that's before I touch on academia. The Red Sox were swept out of the playoffs by the Angels, and the Yankees won the World Series. The '09 Patriots, by almost any metric, are the worst team of the Belichick era, having suffered embarrassing defeats such as the fourth-and-2 game at Indy, not to mention the playoff loss to the Ravens.

A-Rod had been on that World Series team, with Kobe Bryant a defending NBA champion and Sidney Crosby a defending Stanley Cup champion at the time. Things were less than groovy, and it looked as though Peyton Manning was about to win his second Super Bowl -- both more recently than Tom Brady at that point in time.

That is, until, The Who closed out their halftime set with "Won't Get Fooled Again," perhaps an omen to the Colts getting fooled by an on-sides kick to begin the second half. Peyton's pick-six to Tracy Porter in the fourth quarter served as a reminder that he still lacked a 'clutch gene' (cc: Skip Bayless) and perhaps most importantly, the Saints had won for the city of New Orleans, less than five years after Hurricane Katrina nearly forced them away from the city permanently.

Caleb's been getting on me lately for an overuse of "people forget that," but people do forget that the Saints wanted out of New Orleans during the aftermath of Katrina. They played four games in San Antonio and four games in Baton Rouge (at LSU's stadium) that season with the Superdome unsuitable. If you think I get fired up about the Sonics relocation to OKC, the parallel universe where the Saints leave Louisiana is not a sight for the faint of heart.

Who dat?! Dat Peyton on the ground.

1. 2011 Dallas Mavericks (defeated Miami Heat, 4-1, in NBA Finals)

July 8, 2010: 

June 13, 2011:

More so than any other championship on this list, this was more against the team that lost than for the team that won. Which isn't to say I have an issue with the Mavericks, not by a long shot. Dirk is truly one of the more underappreciated superstars of this generation. Dallas won 50-plus games 11 seasons in a row from 2001 to 2011, and haven't finished below .500 since the season prior to that. Sure, they only have one championship to show for during that run, but better to be the '90s Braves or '00s Colts than the team that never broke through. 

The Bruins won the Stanley Cup a few nights later, making this sneaky one of the greatest weeks ever to be a sports fan in New England. 

Oh and who was the owner of said Dallas Mavericks?

Mark Cuban

So there you have it. The five nights I've enjoyed more than any other, save for the nine Boston title clinchers, as a sports fan. Did I miss any? Do I still hate LeBron a little too much? Should I let the SuperSonics thing go? How much does it suck A-Rod is undefeated (1-0) in the World Series? Let me know @JakeLevin477.

Thoughts on episode 7 from HBO's "The Night Of"

Seven episodes down. One to go. What a ride this season has been, let's see if it all pays off next Sunday evening for the finale. But in the mean time, let's take a peak in the rear view at episode 7, titled "Ordinary Death." Episode 7 finally gave us the necessary scenes inside the courtroom, actually digging into the trial aspect of Andrea's murder. Don't get me wrong, I understand that we needed to take some time to slow things down and learn about the characters. I understand that we had to explore the timeliness of the system. I appreciate that we got to see the transformation of Badass Naz in Rikers. I appreciate all of the meticulous camerawork, spine chilling soundtrack, and award-worthy acting. I do, I really do. But the reason I invested my viewership into this show was to find out if Naz committed the murder, or if someone else did. Although I'm a little irritated that it took until the seventh episode, I was certainly satisfied that we got to see some courtroom action.

The MVP of the courtroom was easily Dr. Katz.

If there is going to be a savior for Naz, which at this point I'm unsure of, it will be Dr. Katz. Ironically every fan of this show has been saying that the cat will somehow solve the murder, making up theories of the cat's symbolism, and maybe it was all just a preview of this legend. Dr. Katz is the first person who has even remotely rattled Weiss so far, and it was pure poetic justice. Every time that woman appears on my screen I cross my fingers hoping I never have to see or hear her again. Dr. Katz finally brought up some useful points in Naz's defense, something that we've seen very minimally throughout the show.

The LVP from the courtroom, without a doubt in my mind, was the disloyal Mrs. Khan.

Seriously I was so beyond furious when I saw Mrs. Khan walk out of the courtroom. Although she's clearly going through a very tough time, you've gotta be ride or die for your son. I don't care what the media has to say, what the State has to say, or what anyone has to say. It'd be one thing if she thought Naz was a dirt bag from the beginning, but she straight up let herself get persuaded and now even if Naz gets out, those two will never have the same relationship as before. I get why she could be enraged and frustrated by the unfortunate scenario she has been presented with, but you've got to stick to your roots Momma Naz. In an earlier episode, some time when Naz and Freddie's relationship was still undeveloped, Freddie told Naz something along the lines of "Family is everything." As I see it, while Naz's Rikers family grew stronger (more to come on that later), his real family was falling apart. Naz's mom is the first, and I hope last, member of his outside family to bounce.

I've seen a lot of chatter on Reddit that bring up her finding the Maxim magazine and condoms was the very beginning of her losing faith in Naz. But finding some sexually related stuff in your college son's bedroom doesn't even look at the same moon as stabbing a girl to death. Absolutely no correlation. If every Maxim reading, condom wearing male was a murderer, the incarceration rates would outweigh the free population.

Other courtroom highlights:

We saw Naz's former high school basketball coach at the stand, and they reviewed the previously known altercation that got Naz suspended from school. Things were looking up as Chandra is a wildly credible source to defend a point such as built-up post 9/11 tensions, until the coach revealed that Naz had another damn altercation after his suspension. Another altercation that his lawyers knew nothing about. Another altercation that helped the State portray him as capable of murder. Come on dude, you need to do a better job of filling your lawyers in on things like that. Be better.

Chandra FINALLY brought up seeking out other suspects such as the hearse driver, Duane Reade, and Trevor. At first when people started to complain about these things not being brought up, I chalked it up to the loads of evidence against Naz. But for the sake of the viewers, this is ridiculous. I'm pumped Chandra finally brought it up but there's still no answers and we have one episode left. This certainly could've been brought up earlier during those few drowsy episodes. And speaking of Duane Reade-related unanswered questions, how did they never explain what happened when Stone was chasing Duane through dark alleys with a weapon? I feel insulted. Deprived. Foolish for believing the writers would finish that scene, or at least explain an aftermath of the situation that was potentially lethal for a main character.

It was also FINALLY brought to everyone's attention that Box took evidence from the crime scene, Naz's inhaler. I will admit his responses were strong, as he did so in a pretty convincing manner. But even though his argument was reasonably persuasive, we still sort of saw a more cutthroat side of him. Personally I've always kind of liked Box, because I've been waiting for him to realize he truly doesn't believe Naz did it. But he's come this far, I don't know if he'll turn back now. If anything did give me a sense of him coming to this realization though, it's the combo of another girl stabbed to death at the beginning of the episode, and his thoughtful stare at the new set of golf clubs after his retirement shin dig.

Maybe it's starting to resonate with Detective Box that he doesn't want the last job of his career to be a botched one. Or perhaps, a bogie. Am I right? Thanks, donations are not only allowed but encouraged. 

The State attempted to further dismiss Naz's "good boy" image by questioning one of his frequent Adderall customers from school. Very easy case to make, but it definitely doesn't have enough leverage. Much like Mrs. Khan discovering that her son did in fact have hormones, the fact that Naz sold his Adderall is nowhere comparable to murdering someone. Surely disproves that he is a perfect angel, but I know plenty of far-from-perfect characters that have refrained from taking another person's life. When Weiss broke down how Naz was scheming this kid on Adderall prices and insulted this kid (Amir I think is his name) in the process, she asked (in referral to them both being in the same business school), "Which of you would you say is learning the most?" I could kind of see this also indirectly referring to him learning how to survive and climb the totem pole at Rikers.

Probably insignificant but Naz's smirk to his customer in the courtroom weirded me out for whatever reason. Can't explain it. Honestly he was probably just smiling a bit because seeing someone familiar outside of the prison might have been comforting to an extent. 

Highlights outside of the court room:

As I had said before, the scenes that took place in the courtroom were vital to our cravings for a conclusion on this case. But outside of the courthouse some crazy, crazy stuff went down in episode seven. Where do we start?

The kiss!! Out of a every single "Are you kidding me?!" moment in this show (mainly Naz's decision making ability), this one is lightyears ahead of the rest. I hated every part of it. I was for sure creeped out by Naz's late night phone call to Chandra an episode or two ago, and I was hoping it wouldn't come to them actually hooking up. The storyline definitely could have done without that in my opinion. It seemed forced. Unless, of course, the fact that security footage exists of that major mistake and could possibly play the role of twisted fate for both Chandra and Naz.

In last week's recap I mentioned how sketched out I got by Petey. Seriously every time they showed his face I got uncomfortable. And as we found out last week, he was doing some extracurricular favors for one of the higher ups in the gang, aside from just having his mother be Mule #1 of a 2 mule drug ring. And as we found out in episode seven, Petey just couldn't take it anymore. I don't blame him. But hey, Pistol Pete, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime buddy. I do wish we knew what he was in for, I can't quite figure out what he was capable of. When Naz was in the bathroom, before we knew Petey was dead in there, it was obvious that something incredibly shady was about to go down. I thought Naz was about to get jumped by Petey's "boss" or something like that. And of course right when Freddie found out, he was not a happy camper. His whole operation was screwed. So how did he react? Duh, of course he immediately asked Naz if he had any information on Petey, Naz spilled the beans, and Freddie went to slit the throat of big dude. I've referred to him so many times without knowing his name, and now it's too late because, well...like I said Freddie slit his throat.

Now as we've seen, Freddie has had guys killed or put in critical condition multiple times without hesitation or consequences. However, Naz played a role in this murder, distracting the guard by asking for a new inhaler/paperwork that comes along with it. Freddie was in 'n' out of there without leaving a trace of his presence, and Naz did the same after the guard ran off to peep the situation. Naz being an accomplice to this murder could mean two (or a million, or nothing) things: Either Naz, by nature, is capable of committing a crime that would end someone's life, or prison changed him and he gets caught with this crime even though he was not guilty of killing Andrea. I think it will go one of those two directions for the finale.

As good as this episode was, I still can’t help but think that those slower episodes were a complete waste for an eight-part series. I just feel like when you decide on eight episodes, you don’t really have any time to spare. Luckily for us, I did hear that the finale is supposed to be about 1 hour and 45 minutes long. I’m not entirely sure how true this is, but it would definitely make sense since it feels like we have too many loose ends to tie up in an hour-long time slot.

Unfortunately, I’m starting to get the feeling that we won’t find out who killed Andrea. I just don’t think there’s enough time left. My guess is the closest thing we get to finding out who the murderer is will be finding out that Naz didn’t do it. However, I don’t think Naz will be a free man due to something that goes down at Rikers, quite possibly Freddie’s most recent murder. Maybe now that Petey is gone, Freddie and Naz will approach a new strategy for smuggling drugs in, a strategy that doesn’t go as smoothly as before. While we’re on that topic, I think Naz’s mule days have come to an end as he’s certainly earned a promotion within the gang.

If the show concludes with Andrea’s stepdad being the murderer, I will be extremely disappointed. It would just be too obvious of a choice. I want this show to end with the unveiling of Andrea’s murderer more than anything, but the stepdad would be a cheap ending.

So after next Sunday night, hopefully we’re not too underwhelmed with the conclusion. Have any theories of your own? Comment below or let’s discuss on Twitter @CalebBlackmur. Thanks for reading, hope you enjoyed, and as always spread the word.

If NFL teams had individual uniform sponsorships

As I was sitting being a mature adult and playing NCAA Football '14 (shoutout to the GOAT video game), a discussion between my brother and I was sparked from the realization of how bizarre Georgia Tech's Russell Athletic uniforms are. You'd expect Russell Athletic uniforms out of an irrelevant program, or a Pop Warner practice uniform, but not the Yellow Jackets. It turns out that Russell Athletic is based in Atlanta, so supplying G-Tech sports isn't as unreasonable as it seems.

So this got us to talking; what if today's NFL teams had individual contracts with uniform sponsorships like we see in college teams? What would be the criteria for each team's decision? Would the brand identity more accurately reflect the franchise's culture, or the city's culture? Would there be influence from star players' endorsements? The truth is, I have absolutely no idea. But let's give it a whirl.

Pete Carroll Nike Air Monarchs

The most obvious answers easily deal with the Seahawks and Ravens. With Nike headquartered in Oregon, Seattle is the closest NFL franchise. And since Nike took over the NFL uniforms, the major changes to the Seahawks uniforms made it seem as if the Swoosh focused largely on its relationship with the "hometown" team. The Ravens would obviously be Under Armour, as Baltimore is home of the company's headquarters. Even the Ravens' practice facility is named the Under Armour Performance Center, so the Ravens would for sure be the first Under Armour NFL team.

If franchises were to match their uniform sponsor with the team or city's culture (they don't always resemble each other), it's important to interpret the brand identities within the athletic apparel industry. The two top dogs of the industry are clearly Nike and Under Armour. To put it simply, Nike is the king and Under Armour is the revolution. The king has yet to be officially overthrown, but the uprising of Under Armour is undoubtable. In regards to age, you'd assume Nike (founded in 1964) is the guy at the end of the bar drinking Schlitz tall boys yelling at the TV that basketball "just isn't played the way it used to be." At the door of that same bar, Under Armour's (founded in 1996) fake ID just got taken away. But oddly enough, age doesn't seem to have too much of an impact on the look of each brands' products. The 52 year old company pumps out futuristic looking threads (Oregon, new Seahawks uniforms, their entire basketball line) while the barely legal Under Armour majorly produces traditional looking gear (Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Auburn) Tom Brady, Curry 2 lows) with the exception of Maryland football. In a marketing sense, Under Armour is innovative. Yet in a fashion sense, they're not doing anything too flashy or obnoxious.

If you haven't been concerned with the lack of Adidas mentions throughout this post, congratulations. That means your a reasonable human. Adidas is trash. Simple as that. Having Adidas uniforms doesn't automatically make you a scrub program, but it just means you don't care about how you look. Again, it doesn't mean you're destined for failure. Do you think Bill Belichick cares about fashion? 

Adidas is the bullseye in the "eh, yeah it doesn't suck as much as Caleb's blogs, but it's definitely not great" radar. Could be better, could be worse. And for that reason, a few teams make sense to me as Adidas teams just based off of gut instinct. 

If you don't agree that the Indianapolis Colts would rock Adidas uniforms, we probably won't agree on much. It's just one of the most valid assumptions I've made sans evidence.

If the Internet was perfect, we'd be able to Google "Adidas synonyms" and the word "wildcard" would pop up in there. The Chargers have a couple of wildcard personalities in Rivers and Woodhead. They have also played in a Wildcard game in 4 of 6 playoff appearances since 2004. Lorenzo Neal, a full back, being a well known name for years is a wildcard move. Chargers=wildcard=Adidas.

Detroit and Miami, for whatever reason, came to my mind for some more Adidas NFL teams. Detroit, because it's technically still a major city of the U.S. in terms of notoriety and significance, but not necessarily in value. Miami? I don't quite know why. The Miami 'Canes are Adidas, which certainly played a factor. But as different as they are in their own respects, I feel like the Motor City and the 305 are both considered major American cities while still being pretty JV. Also the Dolphins seem to always get hyped up as if they're going to compete, maybe stealing a game at Sun Life from the Pats, but eventually amounting to nothing. Not completely irrelevant, but scratching and clawing for legitimate relevance.

Going back to the Nike-Under Armour one-two punch, what teams would sign with the top dogs of the industry? 

There are many aforementioned factors that could potentially go into the decision of picking a uniform sponsor, so I'll try my best to consider all aspects that could contribute.

I had taken note of the possibility of star players, the faces of the franchise, having pre-existing endorsement deals that could influence the franchises' business decision. I think it depends on the organization. While Tom Brady has been the face of New England football for 15 years, I don't think that his Under Armour ties would extend to the entire Patriots franchise. First of all, as much as I hate to even think these words let alone say/type them, we don't have that much longer with the GOAT. There will be (unfortunately) a new face soon. And Kraft's relationship/deal with Nike is more reasonable. Even without that deal, Nike is more "corporate feel" just like "Patriot Way." Pats as a franchise doesn't relate to the fan base's culture in a synonymous manner by any means. Nike seems to fit perfectly.

Carolina, on the other hand, I believe would be Under Armour. Cam Newton is the sole face of that organization. Not to say he doesn't have a great supporting cast, mostly looking at you, Luke Kuechly. But without Cam Newton, the Panthers wouldn't resemble their current selves in any way, shape or form. Plus, Under Armour is a definitively modern brand, much like this franchise that has seen a major stock increase in recent years. Even the face of the franchise, who just so happens to be an Under Armour endorser, fits the innovative image of the brand. He's a "new" and "innovative" quarterback because of his transparent confidence and attention grabbing demeanor. Going against the grain. It's just a personality thing. Also, how could a franchise not be defined by a Heisman winning, National Champion quarterback out of the SEC? Oh right. Tebow. Come on Timmy throw me a bone here. Under Armour for Carolina.

One of the more intriguing franchises would be the Green Bay Packers. Neither the franchise or the city have a big wig, corporate feel to them, but it's simply too big of a football Holy Land for the powerhouse corporations to not swoop in on a business opportunity like this. The Packers define Green Bay, so Nike and Under Armour would be pitching their absolute best sales pitches in order to land this. I could see Green Bay choosing to go with Adidas simply for its lack of glamour. But if it were up the fans owners, the Packers would be going shirts vs. skins "every gosh darn game. You betcha. Go Pack." 

I'm sure Los Angeles would be another major target for signing a uniform contract. L.A. is known as one of the most trendy, hip, fashionable cities in the country. "Materialistic" wouldn't even begin to describe that city. I think Under Armour would be a legitimate option considered, but maybe that's not even trendy enough for LA. Could the Rams be the first team with Tesla uniforms? If that's too far fetched, could they be the first NFL team with Jordan uniforms?

I think after signing a contract with Michigan football, Jordan would be all in to sponsor at least one NFL team. The Rams have the perfect market for it, but their on-field performance would not be up to the Jordan standards. So would Jordan want to target a city/area he already has ties with? Chicago? Carolina? Much like the Rams, Chicago wouldn't necessarily allow the Jordan brand to resonate with eliteness by any means. I could honestly see the Bears wearing Adidas because even in their own city, especially as of late, they are sort of the bottom of the barrel. Chicago has way more of a following, and/or sees much more success, out of the Blackhawks, Bulls, and Cubs. Da Bears are just kind of background noise.

I feel like the Titans would end up wearing Under Armour uniforms after Under Armour gives an unreal business pitch, in attempt to take over the state of Tennessee. You would have the Under Armour wearing Titans in Nashville, one of the country's most booming cities, and the Under Armour wearing Volunteers in Knoxville. If UA could pull that off, they'd have an entire state of football fans covered. 

If the Denver Broncos really wanted to connect with the hometown faithful, the home uniforms would just be drug rugs and Patagonia hats while the away uniforms would be sponsored by Papa John's.

"Go Broncos, man."

I would advise the Oakland Raiders to stick with their roots, not forget where they came from, and bring back Starter into the athletic apparel game. The Raiders are the only franchise that could pull it off, but the retro aspect of it would rake in some serious cash.

The Cleveland Browns, in representing both their franchise and their city, would have to do a discounted team order off of Eastbay.com.

The Buffalo Bills would essentially be the AFC version of the Green Bay Packers, playing shirts vs. skins just hoping that enough booze was consumed to ignore the hypothermia.

And to bring it back full circle, the Atlanta Falcons would wear Russel Athletic just like Georgia Tech. I mean come on, it's not like the Falcons are a sexy team to begin with. They're just so plain and not very successful. Exactly like their hypothetical uniform sponsors.

If you thought I was going to break down all 32 teams, you're crazy man. If you think of any other good points, let me know on Twitter @CalebBlackmur. Thanks for reading, enjoy, spread the word.

                 

The Coffee Conundrum

I've written about many things through the years, but one thing I've never masqueraded as is a food critic.

I mean sure, I've trashed the quality of mediocre pizza joints in the greater Narragansett, R.I. area in the past, but that's only been done in 140 characters or less.

Ordinarily I'd leave a topic this polarizing to the heavy hitters, to those with Yelp accounts, but this one's too important to leave in the hands of amateurs.

I'm talking of course about the Dunkin' Donuts vs. Starbucks (vs. Honey Dew vs. Marylous) debate. But Honey Dew and Marylous are about as relevant as Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. This is the Gryffindor and Slytherin show between Dunkies and Starbucks.

The Starbucks vs. Dunkin' Donuts debate is among the most polarizing on the planet. Talk about any hot button issue you can think of and it spews more vitriol than pretty much every other combined.

I know few, if any, fence straddlers here. Your straws are either green or they're hot pink and orange in the morning. You don't wear a Red Sox hat and a Yankees shirt, and you don't watch CNN only to flip over to Fox News during commercials. It's one or the other.

Heading into yesterday, I had an inkling Honey Dew was going to actually be the best of the three I tested. Marylous missed the cut in part because it doesn't exist in Warwick, in part because I'm not 18 anymore and don't need a gallon of sugar in my coffee. As a matter of fact I don't need sugar in any coffee anymore, especially nothing like a Sweet N' Low.

I actually put out a poll question in June asking of the four, which one would you cut first. The results there were disappointing, but not surprising. No respect for the local flavor.

So anyways, with a little help from the Barnes Road Tavern production crew, I did a blind taste test of Dunkies, Starbucks and Honey Dew. I assure you this was a valid test, not rigged in the slightest. Where do your allegiances lie? Let us know here at the Barnes Road Tavern.

Introducing the 2016 American League Most Valuable Player

Generally speaking I try to shy away from hyperbole. Especially on Twitter, where it has a two-pronged blast of negativity: it tends to be annoying ("that was the best catch ever!" or "best scene in TV history!" or it can come back to look foolish later on ("the Bruins sure got a great return for Tyler Seguin in Reilly Smith" or "Scott Chandler is gonna give the Pats that two-tight end look they had with Hernandez"). You know, the hard hitting stuff like that.

But after last night's game in Baltimore, it's really unavoidable: Mookie Betts has assumed the pole position in the race for the American League's Most Valuable Player.

Just to get you up to speed, Betts is currently slashing .315/.355/.571 with 28 home runs and 89 RBIs.
The average is second in the AL (with David Ortiz and Xander Bogaerts next in line, for what it's worth), his OPS of .926 is sixth. He's tied for seventh in home runs, tied for third in RBIs, even tied for sixth in steals with 18 just for good measure.

Prior to this week, Betts had done it all almost exclusively as a leadoff hitter. Not even Rickey Henderson, the consensus greatest leadoff man of all-time, has ever had a season like this. His career high in homers was 28 (remember, it's only Aug. 17 and Mookie's there) and in RBIs, Mookie has already lapped Rickey's career-best 74. He's now behind David Ortiz in the lineup, which doesn't make much sense seeing as how Ortiz is 40 and can't run, but I digress.

I'm not really into WAR (wins above replacement, and Homer Simpson can explain why) but if you're into that kind of thing, he's third in the AL behind Mike Trout (on a team that's 20 games below .500) and Jose Altuve (the diminutive second baseman from Houston who's the best player the mainstream fans haven't caught onto yet). The Astros appear on the outside looking in of the playoffs, which I still say matters in the MVP race.

Speaking of Trout, aren't he and Bryce Harper supposed to be baseball's first $500 million men? Are we sure Betts isn't sprinting his way into the discussion, at just 23 years old himself?

I worried I was being reactionary to the moment by including Betts in my fictional starting lineup of the 2016 USA Olympic baseball roster. He's not just safely on the hypothetical roster, he's a lock to be in the starting lineup and hit leadoff OR cleanup. Whatever his heart desires.

Betts' heroics last night vs. Baltimore (2-for-4, 2 HR, 5 RBIs) won't resemble a turning point for the Red Sox, since it was their fifth win in a row. And for all we know, they'll lose later tonight. But after stumbling vs. the rebuilding Yankees and sweeping a truly awful Arizona team, it was starting to appear the Red Sox truly may be frauds in the context of this season: beating up on the terrible teams, but unable to sack up against a team either directly ahead or lurking behind them in the standings.

After Fernando Abad continued to do his very best Rudy Seanez imitation, Betts answered the call with a tie-breaking two-run homer in the top of the eighth. Boston is now in a dead heat with the Orioles, each team 66-52, and even with the Blue Jays (68-52) in the loss column.

People forget that Rudy Seanez actually had two stints with the Red Sox, in both '03 and '06. In each case, the Sox won the World Series -- the season after his departure. Cue the "hm" emoji.

I never envisioned a scenario where my first-born son wouldn't be named "Tom Brady Levin," but "Mookie Levin" is skyrocketing up the charts to the point "Zdeno Levin" may never need to come to be.

Betts was drafted in the fifth round in the 2011 draft. Baseball drafts are weird, because there's so many damn rounds, but you're not just supposed to stumble upon a once-in-a-generation talent with the 172nd pick of the draft (soooo close to No. 199 overall, but I digress).

Again, I'm not a WAR guy...but Betts already has more WAR than anyone else in the 2011 draft. Not exactly a first round filled with stiffs, either, as you can see.

Just to further how ridiculous this is, in the 15 drafts prior to 2011, only five hitters have produced more WAR than Betts (14.7) out of the fifth round:

• Brandon Belt, 2009 (16.2 WAR)
• Chris Davis, 2006 (17.3)
• Ryan Howard, 2001 (15.1)
• Aubrey Huff, 1998 (20.0)
• Michael Young, 1997 (24.2)

And remember, those are career totals. Young and Huff are long gone, Howard's likely done at the end of this season. Again, what I hate about WAR is that it takes a bunch of nerds to calculate it, and said nerds can't even agree on one equation; Baseball Reference and Fan Graphs each have their own calculation of WAR, for example. This isn't cut and dry like that quadratic formula you learned in 8th grade algebra (x equals the opposite b plus or minus the square root of b squared all over 4ac or something. Did I get it? Math friends lemme know). But we're on a trajectory where Betts could become the greatest fifth round pick...ever?

He's only played 312 big league games thus far. That's less than two full season's worth. We've been duped by hot prospects before, in the not too distant past in Boston. Will Middlebrooks. Daniel Bard. Ryan Kalish. Craig Hansen. And those are just the ones who made it to the bigs for a cup of Dunkies.

Middlebrooks may not have panned out in Boston, but he sure panned out in the game of life.

There's a slew of average players the Red Sox traded who went on to become productive big leaguers, like a Josh Reddick, Brandon Moss, Jed Lowrie or Justin Masterson. But none of them ever evolved into full-fledged stars, and hardly even all-stars (Moss and Masterson have one appearance each in the mid-summer classic).

Realistically, prior to the arrival of Betts, Bogaerts and Jackie Bradley Jr., you know who the last prospect who truly developed and made it in Boston? Clay Buchholz.

When you realize Clay Buchholz is the last Red Sox prospect to pan out prior to Betts/Bogaerts/Bradley

So pardon me for getting a little overexcited that it would appear we finally have the next generation of homegrown Red Sox stars following the Pedroia/Ellsbury/Lester/Papelbon/Buchholz post-'04 group. (Should I throw Hyde Park's own Manny Delcarmen in there too?)

No matter what happens down the stretch, 2016 is going to be a memorable one for Red Sox fans. This is David Ortiz's swan song, and I now firmly believe he is retiring after calling BS the first four months of the season. But there's a pretty good chance that when 2016 is examined years from now, the headline won't be Ortiz's exit, or Farrell's firing after an inevitable botching of the bullpen in September, or (hopefully not) the trade of Anderson Espinoza for Drew Pomeranz.

It'll be the moment Mookie Betts fully arrived, locked and loaded, as maybe, just maybe, the best all-around player in baseball. Not to mention an ace bowler.

Naz-"Killmatic"

I've been meaning to make some sort of Nas/Nazir Khan mashup, and Naz's new bad boy personality made it easy. As frustrating as some (most) of his decisions have been, gangsta Naz is simply much better TV. Consider this bad boy Naz's highlight tape. Always good to impress potential gang leaders with some solid film.

Watch, enjoy, spread the word.

Recapping "The Night Of" Episode 6

Two more episodes left of "The Night Of" and there are so many questions left to answer. The show completely redeemed itself from the two or three "meh" episodes that were mixed in there, and there's no way this thing doesn't end with a bang. So let's dive cannonball into the recap of episode 6, "Samson and Delilah."

I have to start by commenting on the opening shot of John Stone dealing with cat litter on his kitchen counter. If the whole eczema sub plot was really just a tool to symbolize the lack of glamour and surplus of struggle in Stone's life, they should have just shown him changing cat litter a few times instead. Ever change cat litter? Absolutely disgusting. I felt more sympathetic for Stone during those opening seconds than I ever did for his repulsive feet.

This show has the ability to give you an anxiety attack at any given second. Just five minutes in, they did an excellent job making my heart pound when Freddie was catching a quick buzz in his cell. The camera work and dramatic background music had me thinking Freddie was going to croak right then and there, leaving Naz more helpless than a little kid lost in the grocery store.

However, it took only 10 more minutes for that scene to be dethroned as the creepiest/most stressful one of the episode when Chandra met up with the hearse driver. That hearse driver, no exaggeration, very well may haunt my dreams forever. His weird symbolic explanation of Andrea's "type" with all of that cat and yarn gibberish was bizarre. I wouldn't have been surprised if he lashed out and killed Chandra right then and there. I kept thinking that he was going to pull some sort of weapon out of the drawers he kept reaching into.

Seriously if that scene wasn't sponsored by Xanax, then that's just a huge missed business opportunity. 

The hearse driver referred a Bible passage to Chandra, which she eventually read out loud at Stone's house. I did a little "research" (Bible passage summary on Google) to further understand what's good with "Samson and Delilah," the title of Sunday night's episode. Essentially Delilah seduced and manipulated Samson in order to relieve him of his power. After being seduced, Samson revealed that his power was derived from the seven braids in his hair. Samson's braids were cut, he lost his connection with God, and was put in a prison. As his hair grew back, he started to grow his connection with God back. With Samson in the prison, God answered his prayers. Samson brought down the pillars of the temple, taking his own life while bringing everyone present down with him. "Through his death, Samson destroyed more of his enemies in this one sacrificial act, than he had previously killed in all the battles of his life." (from http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/samsondelilah.htm)

I don't know if I'm looking too much into this Bible passage, but I think it goes a lot further than the weird hearse driver's twisted views on women and their utilization of seduction. The act of Naz shaving his head really enabled a significant disconnect from his "good boy" image, disrupting his positive relationship with his lawyers. Stone and Chandra are essentially Naz's power, his "gods" in terms of the Bible passage. Maybe at some point he recognizes the downfall of his reputation, tries to return to his old persona, somewhere along the line takes down some "bad guys" in the process, and dies or is convicted for life. Maybe it's bringing attention to the crooked judicial system? Bringing down the immoral totem pole within the prison? I don't know. But if that Bible passage is any indicator, I think there might be a bad ending for Naz that will portray him as some sort of martyr. I've been seeing a lot of theories on Reddit that Naz will be found innocent but dies in prison before he is released. That's a theory that I could get on board with.

One of the biggest highlights of this episode was, once again, Naz making poor decisions. As if shaving his head before trial wasn't a bad enough look, Naz decided to get inked up on his knuckles.

"SIN" on one hand, and "BAD" on the other. Oh and I guess him picking up a new hobby in smoking crack is worth mentioning. Sinbad is his new nickname in the clink, and the tattoos/drugs symbolize his transformation into a convict, but I couldn't help but laugh every time I thought about his new ink job: 

I've seen a lot of people saying how dumb Naz is for getting a tat and starting to dabble with some drugs, which I agree with completely. It's not wise decision making. But at the same time, Naz has no other choice. He'd be dead without Freddie, and he's starting to adjust to this new life that may last until the day he dies. If you were him, would you have any confidence that you'd get off free? Not much seems to be going his way. Might as well be one of the boys. And to be honest, he probably kind of likes it. He feels powerful, and ironically he feels a little bit of freedom from his traditional, supposedly straight edge lifestyle.

Speaking of Naz's supposedly straight edge, innocent demeanor, we learned a little bit about him that could persuade some people that maybe he is capable of committing this crime. Detective Box visited Naz's old high school that he transferred out of after pushing a kid down the stairs in a fight. Naz was suspended, returned to school, and asked to leave after that. Pushing a fellow student down the stairs doesn't quite match up with murdering a stranger, but the combination of that information and seeing Naz's new prison persona allowed us to see him from a different perspective. Naz's sort of monologue to Chandra explaining the fight was a fantastic scene. Not only did it counter the impression we got from Naz's past, but it was honestly very eye-opening. He described what it was like being of Middle Eastern descent in New York post 9/11, how much bullying he experienced, and how much rage was built up inside of him. It was a bit erie hearing him say he felt nothing after pushing the kid, other than feeling bad for his mom, but it's completely understandable. He simply felt that breaking one kid's bone was nothing compared to all of the troubles he's gone through simply because of his heritage.

It wouldn't be a "The Night Of" recap without discussing Stone's eczema, and this episode's "feeture" was well worth all of the disgusting images that we have been unjustly presented. Stone's eczema is finally healed, and that man's swagger when he got to wear dress shoes instead of sandals gave me a highly genuine smile. Stone presenting his new footwear to the eczema support group was phenomenal. I've never seen someone so proud of anything in my life. Can't help but be ecstatic for the guy. And if you're looking to invest in some stocks, I'd certainly look into the provider of that magic medicine.

We had the pleasure of re-visiting Andrea's sketchy stepdad when Stone visited the financial advisor who was seen arguing with the stepdad at the funeral. They dove into the obvious motive for the stepdad to have Andrea killed in order to obtain her inheritance that everyone has been discussing for weeks. There have been plenty of complaints throughout the World Wide Web that the state took much too long to visit this possibility, but we have to remember how "obvious" it was that Naz committed this murder. If this case happened in real life, I'm sure the large majority of us would side with the state and not give Naz any chance of proving his innocence. With all of that evidence stacked up against him, it wouldn't be the first thought to explore other options. The financial advisor also said that Andrea told the stepdad the only way he would get the house would be "Over my dead body." Maybe since Andrea was suicidal, she schemed to have herself killed by someone else, possibly convicting her d-bag stepdad since he should be a top suspect. Maybe.

Toward the end of the episode, Naz was walking back to his cell before bed and witnessed something that was very intriguing, yet not entirely shocking.

Petey, pictured above, has hands down been the shadiest character in Freddie's crew. The way he always gives that stare to Naz gives me the chills every time. I've always wondered how this scrawny little weirdo got into Freddie's protected bunch, but it now makes complete sense after we saw him....well, doing a favor for one of the big dudes in the crew. Of course Naz was stupid enough to stop and stare, allowing both "participants" to witness the witness.

I was honestly shocked that Naz didn't get raped right then and there, but a good slice to the neck isn't ideal either. I have a feeling things are about to implode in Freddie's prison family, maybe something like Naz getting back at this guy and Petey. Getting back at this guy for cutting him, and getting back at Petey for always giving him that disrespectful glare. Ease up dude, Naz swallowed drugs from your mother's genitalia and sat on the toilet until it came out. Are you grateful for that at all? 

I've been thoroughly enjoying my weekly ritual of checking Reddit after each new episode. I've never been a Reddit guy because I feel like I'd waste too much time going down rabbit holes, but it's great to read everyone's reactions and theories. Some theories are genius, some are ridiculous, some posts enrage me, some posts make me laugh. Here are three featured Reddit posts that caught my attention.

Classic. That lady is the absolute worst. Her schtick is so notoriously ridiculous that she willingly plays up her persona on a fictional show. Power to her for raking in the money, I guess.

Okay tough guy, chill out. Hey everyone, look! I found THE Man!

This did a good job of pointing out that Freddie truly does look after Naz, even though his genuine motive for doing so is still unclear. Many people think that Freddie is trying to cover up one of his boys, who is the true murderer, but it just doesn't add up. Plus, if he didn't take in Naz, Naz would have been dead without a doubt. With all of the evidence stacked against Naz, and with Naz unable to explain what really happened because he's dead, what are the chances the state would end up finding someone else as the murderer? Also, the shirt-swapping scene in court was a great use of comedic relief. Watching Stone mumble in disappointment to Naz while trying to be discreet about switching shirts was hysterical.

"The Night Of," like most HBO shows, does an excellent job of putting jams on for the ending credits. Here's this week's banger. You're welcome.

Two more episodes left. Thanks for reading, spread the word, and follow me on Twitter @CalebBlackmur.