Author: Julliana Bravo

Driving, don’t have time to read, or simply can’t read? Listen to the audio recording of this article.

Everyone has a love story. If not with a person, likely with a sports team. Perhaps their love started at a young age, watching their team score more points than the other. Or maybe their love developed later in life after a cross-country move. For the lucky few, sports mean National Championships, elite players, and an exciting stadium atmosphere. For others, the risk of horrible trades, poor management, and relocation looms over them. In the United States, a sports team relocation happens at a jarring rate. No team is safe, no city is safe, no fan is safe.

Last month, I wrote about the day the NBA decided to relocate the Seattle SuperSonics to the Oklahoma City Thunder in a move that hurt fans and caused a revolt against the lies politicians and the NBA told. Through my research, I found a phenomenon in which sports teams in the United States can pack their bags, their players, and worse, their history, and relocate to a completely new city that has no connection to its old city. Seattle isn’t the only victim of team relocation– Cleveland, Hartford, and even Brooklyn fit in this category, too.

I had some doubts about touching on this topic. The NBA brings up the idea of bringing a team back to Seattle what seems like every six months only to say: sorry, check back next time! Why rub salt on the wound without any intention of healing it? In short, because people care about preserving the legacy of their favorite sports team. While I may not fully understand why people stay loyal to defunct sports teams, I spoke to some people who can. Sports team relocation is an emotional, economic, and cultural disruption to a city and unique to the United States. To understand more deeply, let’s look at two cities that experienced the pain of relocation: Seattle and Hartford.

The Seattle SuperSonics 

The relocation of the Seattle SuperSonics to Oklahoma City Thunder was a disappointing but unsurprising move for many fans and players. Just two years before, then owner Howard Schultz sold the team to a group of Oklahoma City men after he was done dealing with the NBA, Sonics players, and the ongoing issues regarding the Key Arena lease. I spoke with Jason Reid, director of Sonicsgate, to further understand the events of the relocation and why he decided to film this documentary. 

Born and raised in Seattle, documentarian Jason Reid is a diehard Seattle fan. In the late 80s, he turned to Sonics basketball and it’s been his favorite sport ever since, even if the city doesn’t have a team. Reid began filming before he ever had plans to make a feature length documentary, by publishing web videos for the Seattle Weekly.

“As it became clearer and clearer the team was going to leave, I started recording more press conferences and things that were happening in local government,” Reid said. “My thinking wasn’t necessarily, ‘I want to make this feature documentary that’s going to expose everybody…’ but if the team leaves, I have this footage of these guys lying their asses off!” Reid refers to NBA staff and politicians who promised to keep the team in Seattle, when in reality, they were attempting to relocate as soon as they could. 

Reid began editing Sonicsgate as soon as he got back from China, where he was filming another documentary. They launched it for free online before CNBC and ESPN asked for a TV version to put on air. For Reid, the documentary was a way to give voice to Seattleites who felt they had been cheated by politicians and the league. For a city with a rich basketball history to be stripped away of its team and culture was wrong. 

But, why do some cities feel they are more ‘deserving’ of a sports team than others? Simply put, “it’s a community institution,” Reid said. “The thing about Seattle is that it’s really gray and really dark and really rainy for the exact time period of basketball season– from October until May and June… so we always had this amazing indoor sport you can go to two or four times a week,” Reid said. “When… you remove that… it changes entirely how you feel about the sport,”

Culture isn’t the only thing that’s changed in Seattle. Businesses were heavily impacted in the area in the years following the relocation, according to Reid. “The area surrounding the arena, which is a neighborhood, had tons of great bars and restaurants that got packed for… at least 40 nights a year or more. Those businesses were relying on the team and they were relying on the events happening there,” Reid said.

The problem with analyzing the economic impact of the Sonics leaving is that, you really can’t. The 2008 financial crisis happened right around the time the team moved, so while Seattle suffered, the team leaving wasn’t the only reason it did. 

There’s some discourse surrounding the actual economic impact that the Sonics gave Seattle. According to Lon S. Hatamiya, economist arguing for the side of the Sonics during the relocation, nearly 1,300 jobs would be lost as a result of the relocation. The city would also lose $188 million that the games generate in downtown action. But, an article published on Forbes.com back in 2008 argued that these numbers were inflated and those jobs would be recovered in different areas of the city.

When asked if the team has a chance at ever coming back to Seattle, Reid remains optimistic. “We have billionaires in our city… we have a community that’s ready to support it.” Seattle also has an arena that underwent a $1.15 billion renovation recently. The truth is, Seattle is lucky it’s ready. Smaller cities in the United States, like Hartford, Connecticut, although once supported professional sports teams, don’t have the physical space to house a new team, but they do have the fans.

The Hartford Whalers 

That song is Brass Bonanza and it’s a song you would have heard if you’d gone to a Hartford Whalers game nearly 30 years ago. The song, like the logo, is an iconic part of Whalers and Connecticut history and one you can still see and hear to this day.

Christopher Price, a journalist at the Boston Globe, is one of those fans who still has a memory of that song. Price has deep New England roots, having grown up in Hartford County before moving to Massachusetts. In 2022, he published Bleeding Green, a book that Price called “a passion project.” The idea for the book came from his wife, and it took Price about 15 seconds to think before committing to the idea. 

Price grew up a devoted Whalers fan, although he jokes the team wasn’t that good that didn’t matter to him. The important thing was that it was Connecticut’s team and didn’t have to choose between Boston or New York. “This was the first team that was uniquely special to us. That resonated with a lot of kids like myself,” Price said. “That sense of possessiveness, that sense of regionalism, we finally had our team.”

Regardless of performance, if the team won or lost that night, community mattered more. “You could see one of the [Whalers players] with his family at Wendy’s, at the supermarket… they were very much based in the community… it was one of the secrets of their success,” said Price. 

When the Whalers moved, there were two types of emotions, explains Price. First, there was a feeling of inevitability, especially regarding finances. The other feeling was frustration. For Price, and many other fans, the whole thing felt rigged with the NHL trying to embrace warmer weather markets, the underappreciation of Hartford because of its closeness to major cities and its naturally smaller market, and the Connecticut politicians who didn’t handle the situation well.

Like Seattle, rumors about a potential NHL return to Connecticut resurface the media every few years. Price believes that if a team were to come back, it wouldn’t necessarily have to play in Hartford, but a new stadium would be essential. Adding to the challenge is the overwhelming popularity of UConn basketball, which plays at the XL Center in Hartford a few games out of the year. Still, Price is glad the conversation continues. “It [reminds people] that the Whalers did indeed exist at one time and they were a great team,” Price said.

One of those people keeping the memory of the Hartford Whalers alive is Mark Anderson, president of the Whalers Booster Club. Anderson and the team go way back, and he fell in love when he attended his first game at nine years old and was hooked from the first team goal. Like Price, what Anderson loved the most is that he didn’t have to support a team all the way in Boston or New York– a city that could have been 2,000 miles away for all he knew at nine. He had a team right at his doorstep. 

Like the many relocated sports teams, businesses in the Hartford area suffered when the team left. According to a New York Times article published in April 1997, 75 jobs were expected to be lost in the Whaler organization alone. This, paired with the number of businesses expected to suffer in downtown Hartford, meant that losing the team meant more than losing a piece of Connecticut culture.

Anderson believes that “the city never recovered.” Instead of downtown Hartford getting nearly 16,000 people for every Whalers game, they got just a few thousand people every so often for concerts, Hartford Wolf Pack games, and UConn events. Not only that, but Anderson said that the dynamic in downtown Hartford changed, too.

The Whalers were also attractive to fans because of the cheap ticket prices. According to the same New York Times article, Whalers tickets back in 1997 cost about $11, compared to other NHL teams costing up to $40. That equates to $22 and $80 in today’s cash. While $80 is still a hefty price for NHL tickets, it doesn’t compare to the price you’re paying for tickets today. It’s possible to see the cheapest tickets running up to $100 or $120 for games in the New England or Metropolitan area.

That’s a sentiment that Anderson knows all too well. Alongside foundation work, the Whalers Booster Club also organizes trips to watch NHL games in Boston, New York, or New Jersey. The only problem is that tickets for good seats are out of the organization’s budget, a recurring problem in modern sports and a factor that deters many fans from watching their favorite sports team. 

At $20 per ticket, Whalers fans got what they paid for. Boasting an even win-loss record, the Whalers were never the best team. But, for many fans, that factor didn’t matter when the team left nor when the team was in Hartford. What mattered was that Connecticut had its own team and fans had an organization they could call their own. 

Why Sports Relocation is Uniquely American 

There are many flavors of American sport team relocation such as mergers between two teams that reside in the same city or in some cases during war; it’s also common for teams to rebrand within the same city. As we’ve seen, it’s common for teams to completely move, take on a new identity, and even steal the history. In the United States, the first major relocation occurred when the Brooklyn Dodgers moved over 2,500 miles to become the famed LA Dodgers. 

When asked why relocation seems to only happen in the United States, I got varying answers. “No billionaire could ever move Manchester United out of Manchester. It’s not even an option,” Reid said. And that’s true. The history that’s ingrained in Manchester is so deep rooted that to even consider relocating would cause massive revolt. “The reality is, America is built on these private businesses that essentially can do what they want,” added Reid. 

But, England does experience relocation in a different way. Some team names are changed due to mergers with nearby cities. Similarly to the United States, some football clubs have relocated due to stadium or funding issues but, in my research, have only relocated up to 17 kilometers away from their original location. These cause grief to fans, but no relocation has ever had such immense protest as the 2004 Wimbledon F.C. relocation. In this case, Wimbledon F.C. was moved to a city nearly 95 kilometers away. The team took on a new name, got a new stadium, and new fans. The relocation caused so much protest and anger that a group of fans created a new team, AFC Wimbledon.

One of those life-long fans who participated in the protest against the relocation is Niall Couper, author of three books on the club and CEO of Fair Game, an organization dedicated to bringing fairness to football. 

A sports journalist at the time, he had a front row seat to the news of the relocation. 

Couper believes that the difference between American sports and English football lies both in its culture and business decisions. Couper compares English football to college sport. It would be unheard of if Ole Miss relocated to Utah or if UCLA moved to New York just because of the possibility of a better market. Professional sports teams, in Couper’s opinion, are run like brands with entertainment value. Couper believes they’re not based in the community or city, unlike in England where football teams have deep community roots. There might be some fans who disagree with Couper’s sentiment, but history will show that many iconic teams– like New York and Los Angeles, have relocated at one point in their history. 

That difference in perception of sport is why American ownership of English football is a tricky and sensitive subject for football fans. There are fears that they don’t exactly know what they’re getting into and see the sport as a cash cow. But there are others, says Couper, who have “fallen in love with the history and culture” of the sport. Currently, 50% of Premier League teams are majority or partly owned by Americans. The number of people who will say they’ve made a positive impact on the club will depend on who you ask– and where.

For the past four years, Fair Game has been attempting to pass a bill that would change football in the United Kingdom. The bill would address issues such as fan engagement, equality, and financial divides in the English football pyramid. “I think I can get a doctorate in law now,” Couper jokes. It hasn’t been an easy journey, but Couper is dedicated to “giving a voice to the voiceless.” 

Couper isn’t ignorant to what some football executives, politicians, fans, and even players might think of Fair Game. “We are a disruptor… we are an alternative to those who follow the status quo.” For some fans, it might take them a while to understand the meaning behind Fair Game, but once they’ve realized it’s focused on developing real and strong solutions, they’re on board. Fair Game is not friends with everybody, but they say things with authority and believe in themselves, Couper said. 

What it all means

The stories of the Seattle SuperSonics and Hartford Whalers are more than tales of lost teams, but a reflection of the cultural and economic system of sport in the United States. What makes American relocation unique is not only the sheer rate that relocations occur, but the lack of authority that fans have to stop the occurrence. That’s where people like Price, Anderson, Couper and Reid come in, to continue to provide awareness and set up a chance for change for the future. 

This isn’t just a story about relocation, it’s about what happens when business decisions overpower community and culture. While owners might promise new opportunities and a better market, the human connection with sport is lost in the move. Until change occurs to put an end to this, old fans reminisce about the history, the songs, the jerseys, and the hope that one day, the team might come back home. 

Driving your car or can’t read your screen right now? Listen to the audio recording of this article.

Three NBA coaches have been fired in a decision that left fans and other NBA staff confused. 

Coach Michael Malone of the Denver Nuggets, Taylor Jenkins of the Memphis Grizzlies, and Mike Budenholzer of the Phoenix Suns were fired in the last month. The decision – at least for Malone – was especially confusing since the team is likely to make a half-decent playoff run.

The Budenholzer firing was less confusing given the team’s disappointing season and missing the play-in tournament even with two star players and the most expensive roster in the NBA. Sources also cite “locker room issues” as a part of his departure. 

Despite the unimpressive season, it’s important not to disregard the Suns’ history here. This is their third coach in five years. The person who will fill that now vacant position is yet to be determined. To me, the Suns coach firing points to a bigger issue of dispute between management and personnel and what happens when those with money get in the way. 

On April 8, Michael Malone was let go of his position at the Denver Nuggets – who won the 2023 NBA Championship in historic fashion. The Nuggets posted a video on X which featured Josh Kroenke, Vice Chairman of KSE using corporate lingo to explain his decision. 

He said, “trends were worrisome but they would get masked by a few wins here and there.” Despite the Nuggets being ranked fourth in the Western Conference, lists like these can be deceiving. As of April 17, Oklahoma City are first in the conference with a .829 win percentage. Next up are the Houston Rockets, a surprising pick but fall to a .634 win percentage. The Lakers are at third with a .610 and the Nuggets at fourth also with .610 win percentage. 

While Malone’s firing was surprising, Jenkins’ firing was even more shocking especially regarding their stellar performance in the first half of the year. However, they have fallen to eighth in the Western Conference with a .585 win percentage. 

According to ESPN, Grizzlies general manager Zach Kleiman said that “Urgency is a core principle of ours… My expectations are clarity of direction.” The same ESPN article highlighted some miscommunication issues between the general manager and Jenkins and said that Jenkins “lost the locker room.” 

There are some key themes that pop time and time again in teams that don’t have a strong relationship between management and staff: miscommunication and micromanagement.

What is curious to me is why, in teams that fail, there seems to be such a battle between front office executives and coaches and players. Instead of being seen as one cohesive team, fans are left picking sides. Why do owners think they make the right decision for the team and players when, in the long run, it ends up hurting them more. 

Ultimately, it’s a conversation about team culture and one I hope to cover more in depth in future articles. It’s also one that was emphasized by Warriors head coach, Steve Kerr. He said in a post game conference when he was asked on the matter: “I think one thing that’s happened is most teams are now owned by billionaires, big corporations. So we’re all more expendable. There is so much money in the business. We’re all making bigger salaries than five years ago but we’re much more vulnerable.”

It’s the eerie reality of sport in the modern day. With huge amounts of money being poured into sports teams, owners can seemingly do whatever they want– trade, fire, hire, or even relocate. What does that do to the players, culture, and fans who are committed to the team?

If you have the chance, please take a look at my other article published this month on the now relocated Seattle Supersonics. On this day, the NBA Board of Governors made the decision for Seattle to relocate to Oklahoma City in a lengthy and dramatic series of events. In that case, then Supersonics owner Howard Schultz was somewhat of a character and clashed with Supersonics point guard Gary Payton resulting in his trade.

I plan on revisiting this topic and looking more in depth about how sports are run– as a business and why it can be detrimental for cities and fans.

Driving in your car or can’t read your screen right now? Listen to the audio version of this article.

Hello all,

It is with great disappointment to announce I do not have a proper newsletter to deliver to you this month. When I sought out to write this article, I bit off way more than I could chew. As a result, my research was faulty and out of line with widely accepted research on the topic.

Ideas come in many forms– good or bad, but they say that your first idea is your worst. I have never felt something so strongly when investigating these long articles. When I began research on this month’s newsletter, I initially wanted to write how globalization has changed international soccer leagues– specifically how Americans have impacted the sport. 

What I found was the curious case as to why it took so long for soccer to become a major sport in the United States. Despite our resources, history, and love for sport, soccer still fails to garner national attention like basketball, baseball, or American football. But why?

That is where I fell short. I didn’t realize just how much went into one single question. It was unfair to deliver that article to you, since it would be riddled with mistakes and incorrect assumptions. Instead, I give you a shortened and hopefully less wrong version of why I think soccer is not a major sport in the United States. Going forward, I hope to make my topics more specific so that research is more condensed and easier for me. 

Our past relationship with soccer in the United States

To understand why soccer is not a major sport in the U.S., we have to understand why soccer is a global sport. In short, it brings three continents together – Europe, South America, and Africa – through a single art form. Many countries in these three continents all compete in soccer at the international level and participate in the World Cup as a fierce contender. On top of that, there is no presence of another team sport that has the history, cultural ties, and money pouring into leagues like soccer does. It is just soccer. 

In the United States, soccer competes with three culturally important American sports: basketball, baseball, and American football for the attention of American sports fans. While the big three have leagues that exist outside the United States, they are not at the same level. The same way in which MLS exists in the U.S., but it is not nearly at the elite level as the Premier League, La Liga (Spain), or Ligue 1 (France).

I’ll get to this concept a bit later, but I wanted to bring forward an interesting article I recently read that emphasizes why soccer isn’t culturally significant in the United States. According to Ricard Jensen in his 2016 literature review “Soccer Fans’ Motivations, Attitudes, and Behavioral Intentions across Ethnicity and Gender Lines,” Jensen states that Caucasians in the United States have been hesitant to participate in soccer as they “have been socialized to place a greater value on traditional American sport.” This is one I think drives the American mind when it comes to choosing a sport to participate in, either by playing, watching, or being a loyal and devoted fan. Jensen states that Hispanic Americans and immigrants have different feelings toward American soccer.

Although this is a modern review, there could be some similarity with historical perception of soccer. However, that is not the only reason soccer failed to develop as a national sport. The Great Depression, wars, and a lack of infrastructure in leagues added to its demise. 

This is where some of my research failed. The history is too comprehensive and I didn’t have the correct resources and understanding of it to deliver to you. That being said, if you’d like to know more about the history of soccer in the United States, I highly recommend you visit the Society for American Soccer History. 

Our Current Relationship with Soccer: Winning and Major League Soccer

What is our current relationship with soccer? It’s hard to tell.

From my experience, Americans aren’t generally soccer fans. If they are, they are usually fans of European or South American league teams, or national teams. 

While Major League Soccer claims that it’s the second most attended league in the world, right behind the Premier League, it’s important to note that we boast a seven times greater population than those we precede on the list. MLS also saw a 47% drop in broadcast audience for the final match between NY Red Bull and LA Galaxy. You can’t make a conclusion based on one number. 

That being said, soccer in the United States has never been more popular than it is now. The amount of money, attendance, and attention toward MLS is growing each year, especially with the addition of Designated Players on the field, which we’ll talk about later. Despite soccer’s current popularity, stereotypes, generalizations, and associations with those who play the game are still very real. It’s not uncommon to hear that soccer is an ‘unmanly’ game, that players are ‘performers’ and that it is a ‘feminine sport.’

In the world of American soccer, there are two types of fans; a soccer fan and a non-soccer fan. The soccer fan perhaps dismisses the MLS for not being ‘real soccer’ or has a strong loyalty toward teams they support in the Premier League or other European leagues. The non-soccer fan dismisses soccer for being too boring, too slow, low scoring, or not a real sport. 

But between the two, we can see a common theme, a distaste for MLS or lack of interest in American soccer.

Much of American identity is rooted in how successful the country is in terms of politics, geographical size, and culture (sport). The United States is good at sports. At the Olympics, the U.S. always finds itself winning either gold, silver, or bronze in many team sports like basketball, rugby, and golf.

On the other hand, when it comes to the FIFA World Cup, Americans do not expect to win and perhaps that is where some of the disconnect between fans and teams lies. Fans from France, Argentina, or the Netherlands all have some expectation for their national team to go far in the tournament. In soccer, the United States has never been at that level. 

In a conversation with Professor Brenda Elsey, a professor of history at Hofstra University, she emphasized that Americans do not like losing and are not used to it. Because of that, fans’ interest in games where teams are not expected to go far is low. It is correct to say that more Americans are watching the FIFA World Cup and participating in soccer, however, the constant disappointment is enough to discourage fans from getting too close to a team or learning enough about the players to be emotionally committed to the game like they are with other sports. At the international level, we either win or lose. If we lose, (poorly, that is) fans do not feel the need to become interested in the sport. While Argentina, France, and the Netherlands might not win all the time, they still have won enough to feel comfortable with their relationship with soccer. Americans, not so much.

You might be thinking to yourself, well, Julliana, there are a ton of loyal fans for really bad MLB, NFL, and NBA teams. Well, you’re right. But I think our already weak relationship with soccer doesn’t help the fact that we do not like to lose.

In the same article, Jensen states that Hispanics might enjoy soccer and be passionate about their team because the team’s success reflects positively on the ethnic group as a whole. I’d say that the same logic could be applied to Americans and a reason why Americans do not participate in soccer. The lack of a strong team represents poorly and sometimes it is better not to get involved to prevent embarrassment.

Professor Elsey also mentioned that U.S. professional leagues are based on intercity and interstate rivalries– i.e. Boston versus New York and San Fran versus Los Angeles. While the NBA and MLB do have teams based in Toronto, that is the extent of their outside-of-the-USA leagues. This limited international competition results in Americans always being the underdogs, which Americans do not feel comfortable with. 

According to a 2013 article titled “Sport Sponsorship: The Relationship Between Team Loyalty, Sponsorship Awareness, Attitude Toward the Sponsor, and Purchase Intentions” Biscaia et al. found that certain things such as success of a club, team history, atmosphere of the stadium, and even the loyalty of other fans (although one of the lower scoring factors) are all important factors that decide whether or not to participate in a fandom. In the case of the USMNT, these are all reasons why Americans do not participate in the league. The success of the team is low, team history is weak, the atmosphere is ok, but not exhilarating, and fans are not long standing. 

Major League Soccer and Designated Players

Major League Soccer is the United States’ highest performing soccer league. As mentioned, in 2024, it surpassed legacy leagues such as La Liga in Spain and the Bundesliga in Germany in attendance.  

I believe one of the reasons for this was Messi’s appearance at the game. The use of ‘star power’ – athletes with global recognition certainly brings more attention to the league. However, I think that the lack of American star athletes in the MLS is creating a disconnect for long lasting MLS and USMNT fans.

In 2007, David Beckham was the first Designated Player to play for LA Galaxy. The star was paid a whopping $8 million (counted for inflation) while his teammates were paid anywhere from $12,000 to $1 million. Fast forward 18 years later, Lionel Messi is another famous Designated Player playing on Inter Miami who pays him $12 million for the 2025 season. While his Spanish teammates and co-Designated Players Jordi Alba and Sergio Busquets, have had success on the field, Alba is being paid $1.25 million. Busquets’s 2025 salary has not been revealed, but in the 2024 season he was paid $8.5 million. The Designated Player Rule allows teams to have a max of three players outside MLS salary cap with the intention of bringing success and more attention to the league. 

Designated Players do not have to be international, however, all but three in the 2025 season are from abroad. In all honesty, this is three more than I expected. I am pleasantly surprised, but not satisfied with the result. One can argue that the lack of elite American players in MLS creates a chain of events. Because there are not any elite American players, American fans cannot relate and do not have any interest in them. Resulting in a lack of USMNT players that American fans know come time for the World Cup. 

But do American fans want or need to see an elite American player on the field? – you might ask yourself.

Yes, perhaps they do not realize this consciously, but subconsciously and for the growth of the game in the United States, it is an important factor.

In our conversation, Professor Elsey also added that American star player Christian Pulisic is not playing in MLS. What does that say about the quality of the American league that the most famous American player is not playing on his home turf? He could likely have anything he wants, play as much as he wants, or go anywhere he wants, yet he is playing abroad.

The Future of Soccer in the United States: 2026 FIFA World Cup

With the FIFA World Cup coming to the United States, Mexico, and Canada in 2026, it is interesting to think about how American fans will react to the spectacle. The FIFA organization is not doing much to market to American fans, not that it needs to. Most of the responsibility lies in the USMNT to realize that this is a great way to get a new set of American fans interested in the sport and commit to American soccer, American players, and MLS. 

The goal moving forward is all about exposure. To grow the game, the USMNT and MLS need to prove elite American players exist in American leagues. As soon as American players go abroad, American fans who are already not interested in soccer will also lose interest with the player because they do not care to follow them in a league and sport they do not know. 

To grow the game in the states, you have to give the fans something to care about. It might come to your surprise if I say that it has very little to do with being good, but showing that players are at least passionate about winning. Nationalistic pride is important when it comes to the World Cup and judging from the Four Nations game, we can see that the pride comes easy to American fans. However, the growth of the game is reliant on how the USMNT will market this experience to American fans– they should devote their time to cultivating a strong and loyal fan base by setting up a story for the men’s team, something that will give American fans a reason to care.

Listening in your car or can’t read your screen right now? Listen to the audio version of this article.

If the words like “Tomorrow Golf League,” “simulator golf” or people like Tiger Woods and Rory McIlory have no meaning to you, let me give you some background. Golf began back in the 15th century in Scotland… ok, not that kinda background.

If you know anything about golf, you likely know that it’s a game played outside, on real grass, and usually when it’s blisteringly hot out. Although the PGA Tour, (Professional Golf Association) is played all year round, its biggest championship is in May. Other golf majors (majors are the golf equivalent to the Super Bowl, but there are four of them) such as the U.S. Open, The Masters, and The Open Championship are also played during the summer months. These summer months are golf’s “peak season,” conversely, golf’s natural off-season is during the winter months. This off season is crucial for players to develop their game and become stronger. This is also how golf has traditionally been. However, what happens to the game when companies stray away from traditionalism and break into something not only modern… but futuristic?

The Tomorrow Golf League (TGL), a simulator golf league created by world famous golfers, Tiger Woods and Rory McIlroy, has received positive reception since its debut. Simulator golf is played on a simulator– a huge screen that mimics what it’s like playing on a real course. A video game but with prizes ranging up to $9 million. 

When I first heard about TGL, two things came to mind: traditionalism and content overload. But before I get into that, I want to look at the drawbacks of simulator golf. According to various sources, there was one moment that created some confusion among fans when Tommy Fleetwood’s ball only traveled 39 yards when it should have traveled much more. He was given the chance to hit the ball again but this so called “awkward mistake” not only by TGL but by ESPN for trying to cover it up received some push back by fans. Sources said that despite the hefty price for these simulators, they’re not the best quality sims out there. Technology issues are a natural part of trying anything new. Take soccer and VAR. How many fans out there say that VAR is inaccurate, unreliable, or unnecessary? I don’t need numbers. 

But apart from the natural conversation of tech mistakes, I wanted to look at two other conversation points on the matter.

Traditionalism in golf 

Golf is rooted in traditionalism. While other sports have modernized alongside technology, fashion, outreach, and rules, golf stays immensely similar in its old ways. In basketball, various rule changes have changed the course of the game. Like when the three-point line was integrated in the late 70s and when hand checking became illegal in the 2000s. These two additions vastly changed the course of the game into what we have today. 

Those who work in golf management and golf journalists often cite that it’s one of the more “slow moving” sports when it comes to new and modern ideas. When the TGL debuted, I immediately thought about how the indoor and video game environment goes against the largest fundamental rules in golf: that it has to be played outside. Well, it doesn’t have to be played outside, but that’s how it’s always been! That’s how it’s supposed to be enjoyed. What I admire about the TGL is that they took one of these rules and essentially ignored it. 

To be clear, the concept of simulator golf isn’t new. Especially in cities, golf simulators can be a great way for players who don’t live near a course or don’t have a private membership to enjoy the game. However, simulator golf in the competition realm has never been done at the level where two world class players decide to take matters into their own hands. 

What I admire about TGL is that it is played in a relaxed environment. The league has encouraged fans to cheer for their favorite players and teams and music is played during breaks. This goes against another fundamental rule of golf: if you’re a spectator, be quiet! 

TGL is copying similar methods of traditional sports in which each team pertains to a city in the United States. To me, this is a pseudo-fan base where players can even take a quiz to find out which team they should support is somewhat artificial and too manufactured.

Because golf is a traditional game people are often wary when it branches out from its perfectly trimmed tree. TGL received mixed feedback on social media with some people praising it for “filling the void” of a lack of football and others criticizing it for its difference. Some faceless users on X are saying that TGL will only last two years, that it’s dumb, or that it’s fake golf.

Content overload 

Much of my journalism schooling has tried to prepare us for how much content and news there is in the world. Even if we don’t see it, recognize it right away, or even know about it first hand, there is so much happening that journalists need to cover. That’s why, the other thing that I thought of when I heard about TGL was: Do fans need this?

They definitely do not need it. With four majors, over 100 PGA tournaments, and even LIV Golf throughout the year, there is no reason as to why fans need yet another league to follow and participate in. I don’t think TGL is evil. It’s great when golf breaks away from its deep-seeded traditionalism and conservative outlook on the game. When sports modernize, especially a sport like golf, it brings a new set of eyes to the game that historically wouldn’t have been interested. 

However, I also wholeheartedly believe that if the NBA played fewer games, more people would want to watch. If an MLB team didn’t play up to eight games a week, players wouldn’t get injured so often. Even soccer players, which I believe don’t play as much as they think they do, still complain!

To me, the creation of TGL makes me wonder what path we’re on for a new version of golf and how audiences interact with content. Obviously, TGL wasn’t created just to throw money at something new, (Right?!) There is an audience for this and the audience is now intrigued. I think this is the beginning of a change and modernization in golf that will change the future of the game. I’m not sure if we’re going to get a shot clock at the Masters any time soon, but I’m hopeful that it will bring some new conversations to a traditional game. 

Driving in your car or can’t read your screen right now? Listen to the audio recording of Second Place Fate.

There is no prize for runner-up.

If you’re not first, you’re last.

Or worst of all: Nobody remembers second place.

All of these quotes detail the harsh, but honest reality of being a runner-up. 

Second place entails two things: first, there’s no doubt that a team or player has to be incredibly good to continuously face some of the best teams in a league. However, you also have to be so unlucky to continually find yourself as a runner-up. Winning isn’t only about being good, it’s about a team being at the right place, at the right time, and knowing themselves enough to win against an equally good team. Injured players, poor coaching, bad managers, or lack of camaraderie among teammates can all spoil a potential win.

People that participate in sport, either as fans or athletes, sometimes look at “bad” teams (or teams that have failed to win) and don’t feel empathy for them. For a number of reasons, they claim that they don’t “deserve” the win, they’re not good enough, or that they just need one more player or a different manager, and they’ll come back stronger the next year. The inspiration for this article was finding that sometimes the best players don’t ever win and realizing that you lose more often than you win. 

Since the beginning of time (1917) the NHL’s most coveted prize has been the Stanley Cup– a trophy that holds legacy, power, and history. Few teams like the Montreal Canadiens and Toronto Maple Leafs have been skilled enough to win the trophy multiple times. Other teams haven’t been so lucky, but continue to find themselves in the runner-up position. 

If you were to ask which NHL team has appeared in more Stanley Cup Finals than won, the answer would be simple. The Boston Bruins have appeared in fourteen runner-up positions and have only (if you can say only) won six Stanley Cups. Sure, those fourteen runner-up positions aren’t hung at TD Garden, but they still prove a powerful legacy that the Bruins hold. Using that metric, however, doesn’t account for outside factors such as time, coaches, and players. I wanted to find a team that, despite trying their best, despite all odds, weren’t able to hold up that trophy. 

NOTE: It’s important to remember that second place is not bad (I know that, but do you?). It’s a position that still needs as much hard work, determination, and sacrifice as first place. However, if we have the data and tools to analyze, why not do so to determine our Ultimate Second Place (USP).

The Detroit Red Wings

This is a controversial team to start off with as our “Ultimate Second Place,” because they are simply not. With 11 wins and 13 Stanley Cup runner-ups, their 45% win percentage shows how just dominant they have been over the years. 

Since 1917, (the beginning of time) the Detroit Red Wings’ first appearance in the finals was in 1934 against the Chicago Blackhawks. Detroit faced their opponent at home in a game that went into two overtimes, which Chicago won. Chicago also won their second game, but in their third meetup, Detroit was determined for a potential comeback– and they did just that to win 5-2 in Chicago. Even the fourth game looked like a potential toss up with a 0-0 draw at the end of regular time. The game had to go into double overtime until Mush March from Chicago scored a goal to win the game and the series. That was the Red Wings’ first appearance in the finals. However, with a bit of regrouping and new leading scorer Marty Berry, the team went back-to-back in 1936 and 1937 winning 3-1 and 3-2 against the Maple Leafs and Rangers. 

This was the beginning of a 16 year journey where Detroit would look unstoppable. From 1940 to 1956, when the world was in a state of unrest, (well, when is it not?) the Red Wings came out with five Stanley Cups and six runner-up positions. During this time, they lost against the Bruins, Maple Leafs (four times), and Canadiens and won against the Bruins, Rangers, and Canadiens (three times). This chunk of years marks where the Red Wings made the most impact in the NHL and for their team. Jack Adams, Tommy Ivan, and Jimmy Skinner led the way to the team’s victory. 

The only Red Wing era where they could be our USP was the journey from 1961 to 1966 with four finals appearances and no wins. After a 4-2 series in 1961 against Chicago and a 4-1 and 4-3 series in 1963 and 1964 against Toronto, the Red Wings came home trophy-less. 

In 1966, the Red Wings went back to the finals to face the Canadiens. Overtime would not be their friend as Montreal took the series. However, what might be more impressive than four runner-ups in six years is head coach Sid Abel staying with the team during that time. Unlike now where coaches are fired if there is no promise of a championship a few games into the season. 

The Red Wings’ next shot at victory would be back-to-back Stanley Cup wins in 1997 and 1998, and two more times in 2002 and 2008 with a dominant performance in each series (against the Flyers 4-0; Capitals 4-0; Hurricanes 4-1; and Penguins 4-2). Head coach Scotty Bowman (remember this name) from 1993-2002 and Mike Babcock 2005-‘15 allowed the Red Wings to add to the legacy they started nearly 50 years prior. These noughties wins are why I do not consider them our USP. Although their “Dead Wings” era caused some struggle for the franchise, they’ve had periods of extreme dominance. So, on to our next team.

The Philadelphia Flyers

The Philadelphia Flyers have definitely had some ups and downs when it comes to the Stanley Cup. So much so, that I was nearly convinced they would have to be our USP. 

After winning the Stanley Cup in 1974 and ‘75 against the Bruins and the Sabers (both 4-2 series’ wins), the Flyers reached the finals again next year, but fell to the behemoth that was the Montreal Canadiens. Head coach Scotty Bowman (recognize this one?), and elite players Guy Lafleur and Steve Shutt acted as two of the many incredible showmakers on the team who were literally unstoppable for four years. But enough of Montreal, back to Philly. 

They came back to the finals 1980, but fell to the New York Islanders (4-2 series) who would go on to win three more Stanley Cups in a row. The Flyers went back to the finals in 1985 (4-1 series) and 1987 (4-3 series) but lost to the Edmonton Oilers who would win five more Stanley Cups in just seven years. 

It seems that the Flyers did not only lose in the Stanley Cup finals, but also had the strange magic of making their opponent win several other Cups after that. A superpower I would not want to have. If that’s not enough, Flyer Captain Mike Richards and company arrived at the finals again in 2010, but it wouldn’t be enough against the Blackhawks– a team that would win another two Cups in five years. 

On paper, their ratio of wins to runner-ups makes it easy to call the Flyers a second place team. Although they have two Stanley Cups in eight finals appearances, the lengthy time between their appearances (1974 to 2010) makes me retract my statement. From the 70s to the 2010s, a new wave of Flyer fans entered and, unbeknownst to them, had no idea what it was like to lose out on a trophy. Instead, I wanted a team that was so close, yet miles away. 

St. Louis Blues

If you think I’m looking too much from the perspective of a fan, it’s because I am. I believe there is no team in the NHL that encapsulates such a disappointing and tough loss for fans and the team than the 1968 to 1970 St. Louis Blues. The team had three consecutive Stanley Cup finals appearances and lost 4-0 each time. Their final year in the Stanley Cup playoffs had to be the most difficult, losing to the Bruins with a total of 20 goals against them in just four games. 

After their inception in 1967, Canadian and former New York Ranger Lynn Patrick was assigned head coach but left after a slow start. Scotty Bowman (yes, that man) took over and stayed with the team for three years. As you might recall, Bowman was the man that was able to bring the Canadiens and Red Wings to Stanley Cup victory as well as with the Pittsburgh Penguins in 1992. Unfortunately, Bowman was not the man for the job despite his prowess with other NHL teams. Even the addition of Canadian and Canadien Phil Goytette in their final run was not enough for the team to secure a Stanley Cup. 

Even though I do classify the Blues as our “Ultimate Second Place” team, I do think it is impressive that such a young team and young coach made it to three finals in a row– even if  they weren’t able to lift that trophy. The reason I call the Blues a second place team is not because of their win to runner-up ratio, but of the loss of potential. To have an amazing coach simply not work out for your team makes those losses even more difficult to deal with. Seeing Bowman make it big with other NHL teams and wondering: Why couldn’t he do that with us? Even more, their 25 year streak of appearing in the playoffs from 1980 to 2004, with either zero to two winning rounds had to add to the frustration for fans and management. Luckily for the team, they won the 2019 Stanley Cup, proving that sometimes it’s more about the journey than the end goal.

Driving to work or can’t look at your phone? Listen to the audio recording of this article.

The other day, I read a story in The Athletic about the NBA’s downfall in viewership. This is what the comments had to say: 

“Interest is absolutely down. The NBA today is beyond boring – a bunch of 7-footers shooting 3s… No offensive strategy. No rebounding. No defense… and that stupid in-season tournament that means absolutely nothing and, worse, includes the awful uniforms and vomit-inducing courts.” (Anonymous)

“Vomit-inducing courts” is a bit dramatic… 

“The product sucks, the culture sucks, the politics of the league and their attitude towards their fan bases sucks.” (Alex E.)

And my personal favorite, short and sweet: 

“Your product stinks Adam. Zero interest!” (Stephen O.)

It is really difficult to pinpoint one reason for the NBA’s recent lack of interest. There are dozens of possible reasons as to why viewership is down– boring games, boring play, lack of rivalry, lack of story, the length of games, number of games, social media highlights that youngsters enjoy more than watching a three-hour game, and more. The list could (but will not) go on.

This article started out as an investigation into the lack of defensive strategy in the NBA, however, it took a life of its own and merged itself with other topics currently plaguing the league. To answer the Defense Question (DQ), I had to look at a variety of data from two different NBA eras. I decided on the 1996-1997 and 2023-2024 season, mainly because 96-97 was the first season the NBA started to record these advanced player and team statistics but also because we are able to see some significant changes from only two decades prior.

Offense and defense

It is important to note that the best offensive teams are not necessarily the best defensive teams. Offensive and defense are two important but very different strategies teams need to employ in order to be great. Some teams are better offensively than defensively, and vice versa.

To measure offense, I used Points Per Game (PPG, for teams and players). While this is not the only scale, I believe it is the most comprehensive measure of offense. However, we will not be looking too comprehensively at PPG or offense in this article.

For defense, I used Defensive Rating (DR, for teams) which represents the number of points a team allows per 100 possessions. According to an article written by Nick Ashbourne on RG.com, Possessions = 0.5 × ((Team FGA + 0.4 × Team FTA – 1.07 × Team OREB + Team TOV) + (Opponent FGA + 0.4 × Opponent FTA – 1.07 × Opponent OREB + Opponent TOV)) How did they come to this formula? I’m not sure, but the rest of the article has pretty good insight into measurements and calculations for defense in the NBA, so take a look if you’re interested. For players, I used Defensive Win Shares (DEF WS), which measures a player’s defensive contribution to a team’s win.

Some people claim you can’t analyze defense without watching a game. It is a nuanced measurement that is hard to calculate with just one number. This is true, however, it is also immensely easier to measure defense with a number and since the NBA has been measuring it since 1996, that is what I used.

According to the NBA, the best Defensive Rating teams in the 2023-2024 season were the Timberwolves (108.4), Celtics (110.6), Magic (110.8), Thunder (111.0), and Heat (111.5)– with an average of 110.46. The teams with the best Defensive Rating were the Heat (99.2), Knicks (99.5), Hawks (100.3), Bulls (100.7), and Cavaliers (100.8)– with an average of 100.1. Defensive Rating has decreased by 10.36.

Let’s take a minute to compare the highest Defensive Rating in the 96-97 season to the lowest Defensive Rating in the 23-24 season. In 1997, the highest Defensive Rating came from the San Antonio Spurs with a score of 110.8, which is only 2.4 points less than the lowest Defensive Rating in the 23-24 season. From this number alone we can conclude that defense has gotten worse over the years.

If you’re interested in knowing about offense, here are some statistics. The best PPG teams in the 23-24 season were: Pacers (123.3), Celtics (120.6), Thunder (120.1), Bucks (119), and Hawks (118.3)– with an average of 120.26 points. The teams with the highest PPG in the 96-97 season were the Bulls (103.1), Jazz (103.1), Suns (102.8), Supersonics (100.9), Celtics (100.6)– an average of 102.1 points. While defense has definitely dropped, offense has surely surged by a whopping 18.1 points.

PPG and DEF Ratings Chart 

If you learn by seeing, here is a handy chart and some additional numbers just to hone in on how much defense and offense has changed number-wise.

Individual players 

Looking at Defensive Ratings per team is not enough, we need to analyze individual players on these top defensive teams. In the chart below, you will see the top five Defensive Win Share players from the top five Defensive Rating teams. 

Like Defensive Rating, Defensive Win Shares is controversial because of its simple measurement that might not be accurate as opposed to watching a game. However, these players are all good defensive players. Rudy Gobert is a four-time Defensive Player of the Year award winner. Dikembe Mutombo was 96-97 DPOY and had the highest Defensive Win Shares score the same year. 

To clarify, this chart is not intended to compare Dennis Rodman to Chet Holmgren or Tim Hardaway to Rudy Gobert; it is simply a mechanism to measure the change between the top five players in both eras. Like Defensive Rating, player Defensive Win Shares have also dropped over the years. 

From team Defensive Rating and player Defensive Win Shares, we can see there is a significant decrease in defense over the years. Along with that, there is a change in positions from the 96-97 to the 23-24 season. In the 96-97 season there were four Power Forwards, four Centers, seven Shooting Guards, five Point Guards, and five Small Forwards. In the 23-24 season, there were six Power Forwards, six Centers, five Shooting Guards, three Point Guards, and five Small Forwards. There wasn’t a significant change in positions who dominated Defensive Win Shares, however, we can see that the Shooting Guard became less popular and Power Forwards and Centers became more popular. The increase in the Center position made me curious about the position and its role over the years.

The Big Man

The Center position is one of the most important defensive positions in basketball. For reference, 26 Centers have won Defensive Player of the Year while only 16 Shooting Guards, Small Forwards, Point Guards, and Power Forwards. I made the mistake of thinking that the Center (aka, a Big Man) position was dead. However, that is not true. From the 96-97 season to the 23-24 season, there are three more Center positions in the NBA. If this was a ‘dead position’ then we would have seen a greater decrease in the number of players who play Center. Instead, I think the Center position is becoming more well-rounded– meaning Centers have more responsibility on the court.

To understand how the Center position has truly changed, we can look at some statistics that highlight this evolution. In the 96-97 season, each Center attempted an average of seven 3-pointers throughout the entire season. Now, Centers attempt 64 throughout the season– and they are making about 10% more of these shots.

On the other hand, Centers nowadays are attempting about 13 less 2-pointers throughout the entire season, but making 14% more 2-pointers. While they’re shooting less, they’re making more points– meaning their shots are more efficient. On average, modern Centers are making 114 more points throughout the season than their 96-97 counterparts. To add to the increase in points, Centers are making 42 more defensive rebounds but only seven more offensive rebounds. As for defensive measures, Centers are blocking less but stealing the ball a bit more on average. 

The Center position is evolving and we can see that through a change in statistics. One of the most important skills in the NBA these days is scoring points. It doesn’t matter who you are or what position you play but to make it in the NBA, you have to succeed at scoring the most points for your team.

The 3-point increase

In December 2024, there was a discourse behind the decrease in viewership of the NBA. Many fans and players gave their thoughts as to why. LeBron James of the Los Angeles Lakers believes that it is because of the increase in 3-pointers. More specifically, he said, “Our game—there’s a lot of f***ing threes being shot.”… He said it, not me!

While making a 3-point shot has become the norm, defending the long shot is still increasingly challenging. Last year, The Athletic wrote an article about what players had to say about defending the 3-point shot. In short, it is difficult. Most teams and players gave vague answers about how they attempted to defend a three. Center Bam Adebayo of the Miami Heat said he prayed that his opponent didn’t make it. LeBron James said players and teams need to sacrifice certain things. Michael Malone, head coach of the Denver Nuggets, said that defending a 3-point shot is a team effort.

Defense is physically exhausting. Sacrificing your body to block, jump, and steal takes effort. Defense also requires a certain set of skill and body proportions. While not every player might have the natural and necessary body proportions (height, weight, strength, and muscle), many players are able to be taught offensive skills. Defending a 3-point shot is also risky as players can accidentally hand check to give their opponent a chance at three free throws. Hand checking became illegal in the 2000s, creating a more favorable offensive game. 

If making a 3-point shot has become more common and defending the 3-point shot is difficult, that means that offensive points are going to grow and defense is going to wane.

So, what’s the big idea?

Is there no more defense in the NBA? Are games becoming less physical? What are teams prioritizing? What are players sacrificing?

It is true that defense has decreased over the years. Games are getting less physical, there are fewer blocks and only a few more steals. While there was a significant increase in defensive rebounds, there is only a small increase in offensive rebounds. However, the real culprit for these high scoring games is not a lack of defense, but an increase in offense. As mentioned, there has been a shift in what teams deem important. When things take a huge amount of effort and do not produce the best quality results (or if there is something that can produce BETTER results), is when teams and players look to take a different route. Offense is becoming more popular among teams, players, and the media. 

While the audience and players might find the increase in 3-pointers ‘boring,’ I think it is important to note that the 3-point shot is a part of a culture the NBA has created and developed for a long time. Not only for incoming players but also for its current class. The obsession with offense has taken over the NBA. Players such as Stephen Curry, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, and more have all created what it means to be an elite player: score points. While these players aren’t one trick ponies, they certainly have created an image of what it means to be a good NBA player.

Coaches and players are also realizing that it is difficult to defend against a 3-point shot– which has become increasingly more popular over the years. With less people defending a 3-point shot and more people making 3-point shots, calls for decreased defense and an increased offense. That balance that once coexisted between offense and defense has become tilted to favor offense. While defense continues to be more difficult as teams and players get better at the 3-point shot that is more difficult to defend.

While defense is not dead, it certainly has changed and so has the game of basketball. In a few years, when the NBA has changed once again, fans will be looking back at this era with nostalgia in their eyes for a time in which a half court shot was the most exciting thing that happened in a game.

I told myself I wouldn’t write two basketball articles in a month, but I couldn’t help it. The news about Jimmy Butler was so fascinating to me that I just had to say something. 

On Jan. 2, at a post game conference, Miami Heat star Jimmy Butler said he wasn’t feeling the “joy” on the court anymore and wasn’t sure if that joy was going to come back to Miami.

The next day, the Miami Heat suspended Butler for seven games “for multiple instances of conduct detrimental to the team over the course of the season and particularly the last several weeks.” They also said that his “actions and statements” have shown he doesn’t want to be a part of the team and the Heat are open to listening to other offers. 

A few days after Butler’s suspension, The National Basketball Players Association, a union that represents the players in the NBA, said that the suspension was “excessive and inappropriate.” They intend to “file a grievance” to challenge the motion. They haven’t updated their motion on this grievance, but according to Sports Illustrated, they tend to recuperate the $2.35 million that Butler lost over the suspension streak. 

Several Heat players had something to say on the matter. Bam Adebayo said “It’s disappointing when you see an organization and a player going head to head.” Nikola Jovic said it was “weird” not seeing Butler around and Terry Rozier said the situation was “tough.” As you can see, LOTS and lots to say. 

If we want to expand the trade drama even more, we have to go back to Dec. 11 when Shams Charania from ESPN tweeted that Butler was thinking of heading to Phoenix but Dallas, Houston, and Golden State were other possibilities.

Mind you, this was way before Butler said anything about wanting a trade. Because of that, Butler’s agent said that this claim was completely false and called the statements “bulls***.” Now that Butler has said these things and requested a trade, it turns out Charania was correct after all.

Going back to the semi-present, on Jan. 10, Butler posted a video on his Instagram story where he was speaking to a barista. He says: “I gave you a compliment. That’s what bosses do. We build you up, we don’t break you down,” flashing a smile and a thumbs up to the camera. Lots of speculation on the internet figured whether or not this was a jab at the Miami Heat– more specifically, Heat president Pat Riley. 

In my eyes, the most important part of this video was not what he said, but the fact that he was wearing a Man United jersey. I can’t help but think that Jimmy Butler is feeling a lot like the soccer team as they fell to the brink of regulation and were somewhat villainized overnight by fans and media.

The story of Jimmy Butler seems to be expanding every day. Many people have inputted their two cents on the matter, where Butler will go, if teams are even interested, or how Butler could possibly be a United fan (ok, that one is me). This is one of the rare instances in which sports can show us that athletes technically have jobs. Some of the most powerful athletes in the world are working. They, just like us when we don’t like a job, either have to suck it up or find something else.

This is also an interesting instance in which social media tends to confuse the masses. Everyone has something to say in their own way. If someone gets a piece of the story wrong, they’re called a liar. If someone simply expresses their wishes, they’re ridiculed. 

If you had to ask me (which you probably didn’t), I don’t feel bad for Jimmy Butler. He is a good player, a strong one if you will. His personality has always shown in the NBA– from his on the court attitude to channeling his inner emo kid on media day. If he’s smart and calculated with his trade, he’ll find a place that respects him as a player and person– whether that be in Milwaukie or Phoenix. The only thing he can’t do, which seems obvious but you’d be surprised, is go back to Miami. 

You know when people say give a two-weeks notice before quitting so you don’t burn any bridges? Well, they should really say: don’t talk about how much you hate your job in front of the media, request to leave/be asked to leave, and then not have any other job prospects. You know, they should start saying this more often. You wouldn’t believe how many regular people do this. 

I’m not saying that what Butler did was wrong. It’s him. But there are real consequences to real actions. If there isn’t a resolution soon, it could get really awkward. Now, after a month of drama and seven games, the Miami Heat and Jimmy Butler have not issued an update. Butler is to return on Jan. 17 for a game against the Nuggets. Unfortunately, I don’t think he will play and I don’t think there will be a trade by then. The only thing to do now is to wait and see what happens.