Ranking the Potential Type of Returnee Season for Survivor Season 50

 Jeff Probst recently announced that Season 50 of Survivor will be returning players, but that was not much surprise to anybody.  We had a feeling they'd have to do something special for Survivor's 50th season.  And it will not come too soon, as it's been since Season 40 that we had a season with multiple returning players.  That is the longest such stretch in Survivor history without multiple returning players.

So after this announcement, a lot of speculation has happened among Survivor fans as to what kind of cast it will be.  There are a few different ways they could go with this, and I'm going to rank them 10 to 1 based on how well each theme would work out and be received by the Survivor fanbase as a whole.  Keep in mind Jeff did not explicitly state that it would be all returning players, so there are a couple of previously used themes potentially in play.  Here are the possible themes ranked:

10. First Boots
What's so special about first boots?  I have no idea.  Could they even get 18 or 20 of them?  Are there really 18 or 20 first boots we want to see again?  I don't think there are.  There are certainly a handful, such as Zane, Jelinsky, Zach Wurtenberger, and possibly even Francesca, but the list grows short after that.  

9. Fans vs. Favorites 3
Yes, they could do a Fans vs. Favorites 3, which would only be 1/2 returnee players.  I highly doubt they will do this since fans want to see a full returning players season, and this would definitely enrage the fanbase a bit.  

8. Blood vs. Water 3
Again, it would only be 1/2 of the cast, but we could see 10 new-ish era players with their loved ones.  I highly doubt they'll do this again, but Jeff does love this theme, I know that.  Again, Jeff did not explicitly say it would be all returning players.

7. Regular All-Stars Type Season
Like All-Stars in Season 8 or Game Changers in Season 34, this would be a regular cast of All-Stars, with winners allowed and no clear theme for the division of the tribes.  One small negative I see to this is it would allow the showrunners to have three tribes of six (AGAIN), which has become a New Era staple.   But also, this theme would be so bland and generic, and while any returning player season would be fun, not having any kind of theme would instantly make it a bit lame. 

6. Rivals
A Rivals-type season has been long-talked about, but never happened.  So it would be like Blood vs. Water, but the opposite, I guess.  10 players and 10 of their rivals.  Domenick and Chris Noble?  Shan and Ricard?  Katurah and Bruce?  Liz and Q?  There are a few ideas.  The issue would be casting them so there are even number of men and women.  But I like this idea a lot, because I bet there'd be a lot of drama and there'd likely be a rival pairing or two that would actually want to work together, since no one would expect them to. But Rivals seems like a bit of a kind of lamer season, so it's here at number 6.

5. New Era vs. Old Era 
I don't think it'd be called this (New School vs. Old School?  Battle of the Ages/Eras?), but this is one I could see happening that wouldn't excite the fanbase too much, but maybe enough to keep the ratings up.  They'd have to settle on a demarcation point as to what constitutes a new era and what constitutes an old era player.  My suggestion is Season 25 as the demarcation point, since that'd be halfway at this point.  But I do see the issue with trying to find 8-10 old era players that would be willing and able to keep up with the new era players.  They key being if they're able to.  Not many would.  Alternatively, they could make this a three-tribe format, with 6 old era players (1-19), 6 "middle" era players (21-39), and 6 New Era players (41-49).  But again, I'd worry about the old era players keeping up.

4. Outwit vs. Outplay vs. Outlast
What would be a good way to culminate 50 seasons of Survivor?  By having six players that have excelled in outwitting, six players who excelled in outplaying, and six players who excelled in outlasting others.  Again, this would be another three tribe, six player start, but I would be okay with this one.  It would be interesting to see who would be on which tribe.  I would worry about the Outplay tribe possibly dominating challenges, but that's where they'd have to cast a couple of players who excelled more in finding idols rather than challenges.  One thing I'd say about this season's cast: No losing finalists.  If they truly excelled at "out"-whatevering, then they would've won their season.  

3. Heroes vs. Villains 2
I'm a huge fan of this theme, and I think the fanbase as a whole would really like it.  However, the line between hero and villain has certainly gotten blurred over the years in the game of Survivor.  Maybe they could do Heroes vs. Villains vs. Anti-Heroes?  That would be a bit easier for them to cast for.  Either way, the theme of good vs. evil is always entertaining.  A good story has a good villian to root against and a good hero to root for.

2. Legends vs. Rising Stars
This is a theme I'm putting forth, and I think it would work.  First off, a tribe of legends.  Who wouldn't want that?  No restrictions on how much they've played or if they've won or not.  Just 8-10 legends of the game--some of the biggest names in Survivor history.  We certainly have plenty of those.  Then, on the other tribe, you have 8-10 up-and-comers.  Rising stars, if you will.  These would be players who made a big name for themselves their first time playing and are determined to do so again.  It would be like having a baseball game of future Hall of Famers against future All-Stars.  Wouldn't that be fun to watch?

1. Second Chances 2
Let the fans decide again.  Why not?  There are a lot of ways to run the voting, and who wouldn't love to have a say in the cast again?  Potential players could run campaigns, trying to establish trending hashtags for their support.  The previous time we had the fans vote, social media was not the thing it is today.  Yes, this would only be players who have played once before, but that's fine--we've got plenty of those.  I do worry that the showrunners/producers would find a way to force a minimum number of New Era (41+) players in the game, but even if that happened, there are plenty of those who we'd love to see again as well.  Also, I must add, it'd be hard to enforce the diversity mandate.  They couldn't split them up into whites vs. minorities.  But I'm sure they could find a way.  Perhaps fans could pick their favorites from a list of 100, and the producers choose from there.  Just an idea.

Ranking the remaining Seahawks head coaching possibilities

 The Seahawks head coach search is winding down, and we should be hearing an announcement in the next few days.  As I'm writing this on Tuesday the 30th, I wouldn't be surprised if I heard an announcement made before I finish this post.  But I thought I'd rank the head coaching options from my most desired to the least desired, and talk about each.  I am only considering actual possibilities, so anyone that's been ruled out (Ben Johnson... sadface) or is just a virtual impossibility (Bill Belichick) will not be considered.  

1. Mike Macdonald (Ravens DC)
He's been called the "defensive Sean McVay", so getting him would be huge, since McVay is in our division.  With Johnson bowing out, Macdonald becomes the hot commodity between the Hawks and Commanders.  Unfortunately for us, he's got East Coast roots, so I think he's more likely to be the Commander's head coach.  But, you never know.  I've seen players/coaches choose teams that were further away from their roots because it suited them better.

Edit: We got our guy!  I'm stoked.  Glad to see he was okay with relocating to the west coast.  If anyone is going to figure out how to stop McVay and Shanahan's offenses, it's him.  His defenses beat both of their teams this year, and I wonder if that factored into the decision to hire him.  Good job JS!  Look out for my further thoughts in my other post where I grade the head coach hires.

2. Mike Vrabel (Former Titans HC)
The more I think about it, the more I like Vrabel.  But... we haven't apparently interviewed him yet.  Would we if we lose out on Macdonald?  Possibly.  JS has to explore all options.  Vrabel won in Tennessee, and I would really fault an aging core and lack of talent as to why the last couple years didn't go well for them.  He's a player's coach, being a former long time player himself.  Hope JS gives him a shot if we miss out on McDonald.

3. Ejiro Evero (Panthers DC)
I guess?  He's got a good defensive mind and his Panther's defense kept them in a lot of games this year.  Their offense just stunk.  The Seahawks haven't had a black head coach, so I would applaud that aspect of it.  I know if he became our head coach I'd call him EE.  I looked him up and all I see are other teams that want to hire him--as their DC.  Not head coach.  So he might not be it.  

4. Mike Kafka (Giants OC)
I remember when he was a backup QB in the NFL.  He was not particularly good.  Why is he being considered?  I have no idea.  His Giants' offenses weren't particularly great.  But I would love to have a younger offensive mind.  If he wins the job, it must be because he has the right plan and will do things the right way.  I worry about his leadership skills, but we wouldn't know until we saw it.

5. Patrick Graham (Raiders DC)
This is who I have felt for over a week now who the Seahawks will hire.  Just a gut feeling.  Again, would applaud the hire of a black head coach.  I just wouldn't be over the moon about this, and it would be a very ho-hum kind of hire.  But I'd be willing to give him a shot.

6. Dan Quinn (Cowboys DC)
Yes, he was our DC as well, but here's what I don't like: His only real success with the Falcons came when Kyle Shanahan was his OC, and he blew a 28-3 lead in the Super Bowl.  What I do like is that he may be able to get some of his Cowboys players to come over, either after they become free agents or getting JS to trade for them.  

7. Anyone else
Depends, obviously.  The above (outside of Vrabel) are the only ones who have been reported to have had an interview.  You think about the best units in the NFL, and a lot of them are headed by a failed head coach.  If I had to pick one not on this list I'd love to see get a shot, I'd say Frank Smith, Dolphins OC.  Or if I had to go on the defensive side of the ball, I'd say Jeff Ulbrich, Jets DC, who used to be an assistant coach under Pete Carroll.  He'd be a lot like Vrabel, but unproven.  Unfortunately, he wasn't granted any interviews, which is puzzling.  

I'm excited to see how this pans out, and I trust in JS.  I'll give whoever he chooses a fair shot (and not be calling for his firing too soon, lol).  I might even update this with my thoughts if the guy we choose is someone I talked about on here.

My NFL Team Tiers

 Way back in the day, I ranked NFL teams from 1 to 32 on how much I like them.  I thought about doing an updated list, but I realized it makes more sense just to group teams together based on what I think of them.  So, I grouped them into as few tiers as I could, which is 7.  I'll explain my rationale as to why each team is in each tier.  I'll also rank the tiers from favorite group to least favorite.  Generally, teams in a higher tier I will like more than teams in a lower tier, but not always.  

1. My all-time #1 favorite team and always will be:
Seattle Seahawks

Being from the Seattle area and being the son of a huge Seahawks fan since their inception, I will always be a Seahawks fan, and they will always be #1 in my heart.  I'll always be a 12, and I'll always bleed blue and green.

2. The Lovable Losers Tier
Cleveland Browns
Jacksonville Jaguars
Detroit Lions
Buffalo Bills
Houston Texans

I could probably count the number of playoff wins in the past 15-20 years between all these teams on one hand.  The teams in this tier tend to lose more than they win, and I have a soft spot for them.  Being a fan of a lovable loser in baseball (The Mariners), I can relate to fans of these teams.  Whenever these teams have a rare bit of success, I tend to root for them.  The Browns, Bills, and Texans have had recent "success", but who knows how long it will last for each of them.

3. The Lovable Winners Tier
Kansas City Chiefs
New Orleans Saints

I tried to get more teams in this tier, but I couldn't.  I also couldn't put either of them anywhere else.  Unless either of these teams beat my Seahawks bad in the playoffs, I don't see me disliking them anytime soon.  The Chiefs have great fans and with Patrick Mahomes, they should be fun to watch for a long time.  And I've had a soft spot for the Saints since they had to deal with Hurricane Katrina.  Drew Brees may be retiring soon, which may cause me to move them to another tier.

4. The "At Least You're Usually Entertaining to Watch" Tier
Dallas Cowboys
Las Vegas Raiders
Baltimore Ravens
Philadelphia Eagles
Atlanta Falcons

I don't really care either way if these teams win or lose, but for the most part the NFL is better when these teams win, because they are usually entertaining teams to watch.  The Cowboys are "America's Team" and have a huge fanbase.  The Raiders have the Black Hole and are one of the NFL's most storied franchises.  The Ravens either have an exciting offense, dominating defense, or both.  The Eagles are always well coached and are usually a good-all around team.  And the Falcons usually have a high-flying offense, whether it be through the air or ground.

5. The Has Beens
Denver Broncos
Minnesota Vikings
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Indianapolis Colts
Chicago Bears
Miami Dolphins

These are all teams that I used to like more than I do now.  None are having quite the success they used to.  Denver in the late 90's was when I first liked them, and I even (sort of) rooted for them in the early 2010's, except of course when they played my Hawks.  The Vikings in the early 2000's were fun to watch with Culpepper, Moss, and Carter.  The Bucs in the early 2000's had an amazing defense.  The Colts with Peyton Manning were always fun to watch.  The Bears had a dominating defense in the mid 2000's, and the Dolphins in the late 90's (and even for a brief period in the mid 2000s) were pretty good.

6. The "You Suck and I Don't Have Sympathy for You" Tier
Arizona Cardinals
Washington Football Team
Cincinnati Bengals
New York Giants
New York Jets
Los Angeles Chargers

This is like the lovable losers, except I don't have sympathy for when these teams lose.  Arizona's in the Seahawk's division, so no further explanation needed there.  Washington has a terrible owner.  Cincinnati just has never appealed to me.  The two New York teams are questionably run at best at the top, and the Chargers shouldn't have moved from San Diego.  

7. The "I Love to Watch You Lose Even If It's Rare" Tier
Tennessee Titans
Carolina Panthers
Green Bay Packers
Los Angeles Rams
San Francisco 49ers
Pittsburgh Steelers
New England Patriots

My most hated tier.  The teams that (despite my wishes) still usually have success.  I can't even really explain why I dislike the Titans, except perhaps that my Hawks usually lose to them.  The Panthers have been a "rival" of the Hawks for a while, plus I have no reason to root for them.  The Packers have been a rival for the Hawks as well, beating us a few times.  The Rams and Niners should be self-explanatory.  The Steelers beat the Hawks in Super Bowl XL, and the Patriots beat the Hawks in Super Bowl XLIX.  I will never forgive those two teams for that.  

I can see some changes happening.  If Buffalo has long term success with Josh Allen, they could move to the Lovable Winners tier.  I could see some of the Has Beens moving up to another tier if they become more exciting to watch or have more success.  But this is how I feel right now, and I'm sticking to it.

Ranking the Nine Skywalker Saga Star Wars Films

Star Wars is my favorite film franchise of all time, and probably always will be.  There's not a single film in the series that I do not enjoy.  As a huge Star Wars fan, I obviously have my preferences and opinions on the films.  For this list, I am ranking the Nine "Skywalker Saga" Star Wars films, so Episode I through Episode IX. 

And in my usual fashion with ranking things, I assign each one attributes and sort them.  The attributes are Rewatch-ability, Believability, Quality, and Lore. 
- Rewatch-ability is pretty self-explanatory, but to further explain, it's how much I look forward to watching the film if I am to rewatch the entire nine episode series. 
- Believability may seem odd for a sci-fi film, but it's more of if the Star Wars universe existed, how believable are certain actions and events that unfold.
- Quality is just how good of a film it is, from the plot to the acting to the visual effects.  We know the sound and music are always top-notch, but not always everything else.
- Lore is how well it contributes to the Star Wars lore.  Does it contradict other films?  Does it introduce too many new things?  If it does, I dock it a point or two at least.  Obviously the original trilogy will score best here.

Each rating is on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being the lowest and 5 the highest.


9. Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Rewatch-ability: 4
Believability: 2
Quality: 2
Lore: 3
Total: 11/20

Comment: Most consider Episode I: The Phantom Menace as the worst in the series.  For a while, I considered it slightly above Episode II, but it really isn't.  It's at least got some rewatch value, as the lightsaber battle is always fun to watch.  There's a bit of meme-worthy stuff, as well.  It suffers in its believability, such as when Anakin pilots a Naboo fighter and doesn't take it seriously.  It's never been considered a great film, and this is probably the Star Wars film where the acting is the worst.  It is the earliest in Star Wars chronological order, so it contributes a bit to its lore and doesn't do much to make the OT look bad.

8. Episode II: Attack of the Clones
Rewatch-ability: 3
Believability: 3
Quality: 2
Lore: 4
Total: 12/20

Comment: Episode I for me is a tad more rewatchable than Episode II.  I can't explain it.  The visual effects are probably the worst, especially the awful green screens they had to use.  The worst is when Mace Windu jumps off a Republic warship shortly after the start of the Battle of Geonosis.  See what I mean here.  It is so clearly obvious he is in front of a green screen.  But this film signals the start of the Clone Wars, and I think it does a decent job of getting us hyped for it.

7. Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker
Rewatch-ability: 3
Believability: 3
Quality: 4
Lore: 2
Total: 12/20

Comment: Is this really the third worst Star Wars film?  It might be.  It's not bad; it's just not as good as the others.  It may be partially due to my high expectations, but I feel J.J. Abrams started out the sequel trilogy so well only to have it lack in the end.  I have seen every Star Wars film at least twice in theaters, and this and the next are the two I just didn't care to watch a third time for a long time.  Anyway, Palpatine coming back from the dead?  Sigh.  At least the film did well in the technical aspects, and a shoutout to Adam Driver for his terrific acting.  I've shared my thoughts on how I feel about Force Heal and Force transport items.

6. Episode VIII: The Last Jedi
Rewatch-ability: 2
Believability: 4
Quality: 4
Lore: 3
Total: 13/20

Comment: That may seem like a low rewatch-ability score, but there's only two scenes I ever look forward to when rewatching TLJ: Kylo turning on Snoke and killing him and the ensuing fight, and Luke and Kylo's "fight" at the end.  It's a decently made film in terms of effects and acting and I found it probably the most believable of the sequel films.  It started the Force transport items technique, which I am not a fan of.

5. Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Rewatch-ability: 4
Believability: 3
Quality: 4
Lore: 4
Total: 15/20

Comment: So many meme-worthy quotes and scenes in this, which makes it very rewatchable.  I'm still not a huge fan of how Anakin turned to the dark side, but it's definitely the best made prequel film.  I did like how Anakin became Darth Vader physically and they captured that very well.

4. Episode VII: The Force Awakens
Rewatch-ability: 4
Believability: 4
Quality: 4
Lore: 3
Total: 15/20

Comment: TFA is definitely the most rewatchable sequel film to me; I did see it three times in theaters.  Everything else was fairly decent and it was such a pleasant experience seeing a well-made Star Wars film with good acting and effects (and a well-written plot).  The part that was hardest to get over was how it cancelled out the Expanded Universe where Han and Leia had not just one kid but three, including a boy who turned to the dark side, just like Ben/Kylo.  But no one can say TFA is a bad film, and in my opinion, it's the best film outside of the Original Trilogy.

3. Episode VI: Return of the Jedi
Rewatch-ability: 4
Believability: 4
Quality: 5
Lore: 5
Total: 18/20

Comment: Most would agree RotJ is the worst of the Original Trilogy; but that's like saying The Fellowship of the Ring is the worst Lord of the Rings film.  It's still a really, really good movie.  I do find myself spacing out a little when I rewatch RotJ, if I'm being honest.  The only reason it doesn't get a 5 in believability is because of the Ewoks being able to take out the "entire legion of [The Emperor's] best troops".  It still fits in with the rest of the trilogy with being a high quality film and contributing mightily to the Star Wars lore.

2. Episode VII: The Empire Strikes Back
Rewatch-ability: 5
Believability: 4
Quality: 5
Lore: 5
Total: 19/20

Comment: Don't get me wrong, ESB is still amazing.  Most people consider it their favorite Star Wars film, and many consider it one of the greatest films ever made.  I just prefer the original over this.  I took off a point for believability (again) because of Luke heading to Bespin foolishly.  He also foolishly ignored Leia's screams of "It's a Trap!".  I guess Leia said it first.  But everything else is magnificent, and I'd feel overly critical to give this film less than a 19/20.

1. Episode IV: A New Hope
Rewatch-ability: 5
Believability: 5
Quality: 5
Lore: 5
Total: 20/20

Comment: To me, this feels like two movies in one.  There's the climax of escaping the Death Star and Obi-Wan and Darth Vader's fight, and then there's a second climax of Luke blowing up the Death Star.  This film epitomizes Star Wars, and not only have there been countless parodies of this film, but The Force Awakens is technically a re-imagining of this very plot.

So, here they are in order, from my least favorite to favorite:
9. Episode I TPM
8. Episode II AotC
7. Episode IX TRoS
6. Episode VIII TLJ
5. Episode III RotS
4. Episode VII TFA
3. Episode VI RoTJ
2. Episode V ESB
1. Episode IV ANH

If I were to include Rogue One and Solo: A Star Wars Story, I would put Rogue One fifth behind The Force Awakens and I would put Solo between The Last Jedi and Revenge of the Sith.

And, let's see the average rank by trilogy:
Prequel: 7.3
Original: 2
Sequel: 5.6

A few of these could move up and down a spot, but not far.  The original trilogy is the best, and neither the prequel trilogy nor the sequel could live up to it.  The sequel trilogy, however, is better than the prequels as a whole. 

2016 MLB Predictions!

The football season is over, and while baseball season is still over a month away from officially starting, it's never too early to get started on predictions.  I will rank each division from 1-5, with a short summary of how I think the division will go, plus some award and playoff predictions!  Fun, right?  Let's start in the NL East and move west, saving the AL West (And the Mariners) for last.

* = Wild Card

NL East
1. New York Mets
2. Washington Nationals
3. Miami Marlins
4. Philadelphia Phillies
5. Atlanta Braves
Summary: The NL East has turned into one of the worst divisions in baseball, but if the Nats and Marlins have good seasons it'll help the division overall.  The Mets emerged last season and if they hit well enough there won't be much stopping them.

NL Central
1. St. Louis Cardinals
2. Chicago Cubs*
3. Pittsburgh Pirates
4. Milwaukee Brewers
5. Cincinnati Reds
Summary: Everyone is jumping on the Cubs bandwagon, which means they'll probably underperform.  With the Cardinals in it every year, you can't go wrong picking them to win the division.  The Pirates will have a good season but there will be too much competition for them.

NL West
1. San Francisco Giants
2. Los Angeles Dodgers*
3. Arizona Diamondbacks
4. San Diego Padres
5. Colorado Rockies
Summary: I think the Giants improved the most of any team this offseason.  Their pitching should be dominant.  The Dodgers will be good again but losing Grienke and not finding an adequate replacement will hurt.  The Diamondbacks could surprise and be the Houston Astros of this year, but we'll see. 

AL East
1. Boston Red Sox
2. Toronto Blue Jays*
3. New York Yankees
4. Tampa Bay Rays
5. Baltimore Orioles
Summary: This division is so hard to predict now with every team being competitive.  Gut feeling: I think it will be a good year for the BoSox.  Yanks and Jays will be in it until the end.  The Orioles are due for a disappointing season, and really did nothing this offseason to improve their team.

AL Central
1. Kansas City Royals
2. Cleveland Indians*
3. Minnesota Twins
4. Detroit Tigers
5. Chicago White Sox
Summary: The Royals are a good team.  We know that for sure now.  The Indians will surprise and play good ball.  The Twins will also be a surprise and just miss out on a playoff spot.  The Tigers and White Sox have disappointing seasons.

AL West
1. Texas Rangers
2. Seattle Mariners
3. Houston Astros
4. Los Angeles Angels
5. Oakland Athletics
Summary: What's this?  The Mariners in 2nd place?  But... they miss the playoffs for the 15th straight season.  Astros will lose some of their magic from last year, and the A's and Angels will be mediocre at best.  The Rangers win the division with improved pitching and one of the best lineups in baseball.

Award Predictions!
AL MVP: Mike Trout (Who else?)
NL MVP: Buster Posey
AL Cy Young: Felix Hernandez
NL Cy Young: Matt Harvey
AL Rookie of the Year: Joey Gallo
NL Rookie of the Year: Corey Seager

Playoff Predictions:
NL Wild Card: Cubs over Dodgers
AL Wild Card: Indians over Blue Jays

NL Divisional: Cubs over Mets, Giants over Cardinals
AL Divisional: Royals over Indians, Rangers over Red Sox

NL Championship: Giants over Cubs
AL Championship: Rangers over Royals

World Series: Giants over Rangers

Well, there you have it.  My 2016 MLB Predictions.  It's an even year, so why not predict the Giants to win it?