The World's Least Consequential Upset

I don't often write about college basketball, and if I do, it's even less likely to be about the regular season. But here goes.

No. 1 Blue Devils Upset by Lumberjacks in Stunning Overtime Loss at Home

Duke, the Nation’s No. 1 Team, Loses to Unranked Stephen F. Austin

Duke's loss to Stephen F. Austin ranks as one of biggest upsets in college hoops history

So what happens now that #1 Duke has lost to an unranked team? What will be the fallout of this SHOCKING upset? I don't know, maybe they slip to 2nd in the polls next week.

More so than in even the NHL or NBA, the NCAA basketball regular season is a pointless exercise in jockeying for position. All games played prior to the tournament are just an exhibition, showcases to be played before the nation's pollsters in an effort to impress. Even then, wins and losses are only a small factor in determining the seeding of the brackets.

In fact, would anyone be surprised if the top seeds in each region are today's top four? Mix 'em up any way you like, but Duke, Louisville, Michigan State and Kansas will all be at the top of the regional brackets by March. Perhaps one of them might "drop" all the way to #2.

Once the tournament gets underway, all records really are thrown out the window. The stakes are one-and-done, win or go home. Call me if Stephen F. Austin knocks off Duke again.

Who's Got It Better than Us?

Some moments after Michigan fell into a 21-point 2nd quarter hole, I texted the following to my brother:

There is NO reason why Penn State should be a better team. Or why James Franklin should have better players. Or why a no prestige program like Wisconsin should be better. Or why Urban Meyer could leave and OSU doesn’t skip a beat.

The Jim Harbaugh era is over.

To the team's credit, Michigan put up a fight, cutting the deficit to a single touchdown before falling short, 28-21. But as I told my brother later that night, nothing beyond that point changed my mind.

Here's a bottom line stat for you: Jim Harbaugh's Wolverines are 1-10 against teams ranked in the top 10. Fact: they don't beat good teams. In a year with a favorable schedule like 2018, they can finish 10-2. This season, with ranked teams abound, they'll be lucky to win 9 games.

Placed within the college football universe, a 9-win season could be considered an achievement. But when your goal is to make the playoff and fight for a national championship, 9 wins won't do. Viewed from that perspective, this Michigan team is mediocre. I don’t know who the next Michigan coach should be but they need to start thinking about it now.

Harbaugh's recruits, in turn, are mediocre. After all, you’re a top ranked player, where do you want to play? Alabama, Clemson, Oklahoma, and somehow, OSU, are schools that play for a title every year. Given a choice between Alabama or OSU or Michigan, where’s that kid going? Why can’t Harbaugh make that difference? And if he can't, why not see who can?

The simple math says that Michigan won't be playing for a title this year. The eye test says they won't be beating OSU, either. That would make him 0-5 against the Buckeyes. Again, if they're not playing for a title, and they're not beating OSU, then what has Jim Harbaugh brought to Michigan? More importantly, what would they lose if he left?

All Is Not Lost... Yet

"Oh, that's not good..."

Embarrassing. Dreadful. Whatever you want to call it, Michigan’s 35-14 loss to Wisconsin was an unexpected low point in a season that had already gotten off to a slow start. Fire Harbaugh? I don’t have anything against that move, except I don’t think that making a coaching change at this time would make any difference. You could only make an interim hire from within – the same guys that Harbaugh hired and who share his philosophy.

But while we’re all doom-and-gloom this week, I bring you a silver lining. A very thin sliver of a silver lining based on a tremendous hypothetical, but hope nonetheless. Michigan’s season isn’t over. In fact, this very loss could factor heavily into Michigan's first playoff appearance.

First, let me dispense with the obvious: the Wolverines would need to play MUCH, MUCH better than they played last week. They would, in fact, need to win all their remaining games. That would include wins against ranked Michigan State, Penn State and Notre Dame teams, as well as a win in the game that is to be played on November 30th against a certain team in scarlet and gray.  

So… let's imagine that the aforementioned miracle has occurred. Michigan has reeled off 9 straight wins, nearly half of them against ranked opponents. (Stop laughing and pay attention!) An 11-1 Michigan team would leapfrog in the standings an 11-1 Ohio State team who they just beat, leaving them ranked 6th. Who’s in the top 5, you ask?

Unbeaten Clemson, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma and Wisconsin (those guys!) would comprise the top 5, but the upcoming Conference Championship Week would make all the difference:

• SEC East leader Georgia and SEC West leader Alabama would play in what would effectively be a wildcard game: you win, you’re in. The loser, with one loss and without a conference title, plays in a New Year’s Six bowl
• Meanwhile, a similar scenario plays out in the Big 10. That one-loss Michigan team gets to avenge that very loss against unbeaten Wisconsin. Not only does beating the Badgers give the Wolverines the Big 10 Championship, but it's a November win against an unbeaten opponent – playoff committee style points! Wisconsin gets to play in the Rose Bowl
• Georgia drops, Wisconsin drops, and Michigan slides up to #4

Certainly this scenario plays out in a series of “what-ifs”, and that’s not even taking into account the monumental task of Michigan completely turning around their season to run the table. But if that happened, and everything else falls into place, Jim Harbaugh would save his job and Michigan would be on the way to the playoffs. (That first round matchup against Clemson? Let’s not get into that just yet…)

Are You Not Entertained?

The Alabama Crimson Tide returns to Tuscaloosa for their first home game of 2019, following their resounding, if uninspiring, season-opening victory over Duke.  While the Dukies seemed overmatched by the time the 4^thquarter rolled around, that’s nothing compared to this week’s tackle fodder.  The New Mexico State Aggies arrive in T-Town as a 55-1/2 point underdog.  You read that right.  The 130^th-ranked team in the FBS (that’s out of 130 teams, if you’re keeping track) is expected to lose this game by nearly 7 touchdowns.

Now what could possibly compel the Aggies to schedule a game with perennial powerhouse Alabama?  Ah, that would be $1.7 million that New Mexico State is being paid to get their collective heads handed to them.  Seems very “lambs-to-the-slaughter” but when you’re a team that’s already been bounced from the Sun Belt conference, you take games where you can get them.

No, my real question is this: what is Alabama doing playing a team like New Mexico State?  There’s always the old adage that you can’t simulate game speed.  True, but what if the team you’re scheduled to play just isn’t as fast as the scout team defense you line up against every afternoon?  I dare say that if the Tide simply played a game against their second-team units, it would be a more competitive game.

This isn’t an issue specific to Alabama.  Plenty of Power 5 schools pad their early-season schedules with directional schools (Northern This or Southeast That), FCS opponents, and the like.  And upsets do happen!  But Vegas seems to think the only upset this week will be if the student section for Alabama comes back for the second half.

Striking Out

The Major League Baseball trade deadline has come and gone.  And with it, so, too, has the chance for the Yankees to fix the gaping holes in their starting rotation.  We've heard the excuses: the price was too high, our prospects are untouchable, we just got outbid.  That's all well and good, but a team that wants to get better -- NEEDS to get better -- either gets better or it doesn't.  The Yankees did not get better today.  Brian Cashman swung and missed.

To be fair, the Yankees are on a pace to win 104 games this season.  They have an 8-game lead in the AL East.  Outside of a remarkable collapse, this team is going to the playoffs.  But as we've seen year after year, playoff baseball is different.  Good pitching beats good hitting.  A team built around hitting 3 home runs a game, for whatever reason, doesn't hit them in October.  The Yankees needed a top-flight starter and didn't get him.

We're not inside Cashman's office. We don't know what other teams were asking in return for their pitchers.  But we do know what it looks like when a team goes all in:

• The Cubs parted with Gleyber Torres, who blossomed into an All-Star, in return for Aroldis Chapman.  Chapman closed it out as the Cubs won the World Series
• The Astros took a chance on Justin Verlander.  All he did was pitch Houston to a World Series title
•  And today, the Astros pushed their chips to the center of the table and came away with Zach Greinke.  They are now the favorites to win again

It's easy today to chastise Cashman for not making a move.  But the season isn't over.  The Yankees might somehow win the World Series and Cashman will look like a genius for hanging on to his prize prospects.

But there remains a very real possibility that the Yankees' flawed rotation pitches like they have over the past few weeks and the Yankees make an early exit.  Clint Frazier or Deivi Garcia are not going to help them in 2019.  Who knows what 2020 or beyond will hold?  Just ask the Nationals about the perils of misjudging a championship window.

Fortunately, it will be very easy to judge how Brian Cashman handled the trade deadline come October.  The Yankees should either be holding a World Series trophy, or interviews for their next GM.

Lotto Blotto

No, I'm not happy with the results of the NBA Draft Lottery. And yes, that's primarily due to the fact that I am one of the unfortunate souls who call themselves fans of the New York Knicks.  While the Knicks did manage to avoid total disaster -- they had a 48% chance to end up with the 5th pick -- I'm not sure that landing the 3rd pick in the draft signifies that the curse has been broken.

But as much as we mourn the loss of Zion and will soon grapple with the choices around that 3rd pick (TRADE IT!), this column is more about the NBA Draft Lottery as a whole.  Specifically, is the system "working" when the three worst teams in the league end up with the 3rd, 5th and 6th picks?

We know that "tanking" is anathema to the league, and the NBA took steps this year to make it less attractive to lose.  Gone was the incentive to finish dead last: instead of a 25% chance for the #1 pick, the team with the worst record only had a 14% chance at the top spot, the same chances as the two teams finishing ahead of (behind?) them in the standings.

So when the balls dropped, so did the league's worst teams: the Suns fell from the 3rd spot to the 6th, the Cavs from 2nd to 5th, and of course, the league-worst Knicks took home the bronze at #3. We are led to believe that these results make Adam Silver happy.  "Take that losers!"

But even if we acknowledge that losing on purpose is bad, has the NBA found the right solution?  Take a look at the bottom of the league:

Absent a lottery system, with the 5th-worst record in the league, the Hawks would pick 5th.  As a result of the lottery, though, the Cavaliers will pick there instead. Let's even assume that the Cavs made no effort to win this past season and were content to finish with 19 wins. The Hawks were bad and only won 29 games, but that's still TEN GAMES better than the Cavs. What could Cleveland have done to win an extra 10 games with the team they put out on the floor? The same applies to the Suns, who had the same 19 wins but are picking 6th after losing a coin flip.

With all that in mind, will teams next season make every effort to win? Or is it still worth finishing in the bottom three for a chance at striking it rich? While these changes certainly curtail the incentive to flat-out lose, the NBA may have inadvertently hampered the league's worst teams from getting significantly better. Maybe there's no great solution, and I doubt we've seen the last change to the rules. Only time will tell how it all works out.

Compete With Your Feet Up

The brackets are out and March Madness is in the air!  So let's talk about college football.  Specifically, an article with a headline that immediately caught my eye:

Harbaugh breaks down quarterback depth chart for spring

The accompanying blurb was even more eye-catching, or head-scratching:

"There's no possible way Shea Patterson will be able to put his feet up, in my opinion," Harbaugh noted.

I am all for competition, and certainly having a teammate push you along will ultimately make you a better player.  But having to look over your shoulder every time you make a mistake is not conducive to success.  So when Jim Harbaugh implied that Shea Patterson, Michigan's starting QB last season, will now be treated to a quarterback competition, it comes as an unwelcome surprise.

Patterson was impressive when he took over the offense in 2018. He only got better as the season went along, growing more comfortable each week in the Michigan system.  (Of course, that growth met an abrupt end against OSU and Florida, but let's not speak of these games.)

Why, then, would Harbaugh not just name Patterson his starting QB and let Dylan McCaffrey and Joe Milton duke it out for the backup role?  Does anyone other than Ed McCaffrey want to see Dylan under center against Middle Tennessee?

But why take my word for it?  Why not ask Wilton Speight, a guy who knows a little something about playing QB in Ann Arbor:

“I don’t know what y’all’s question marks were with Shea; I know everyone was super excited when he committed, and then leading up to the season.  When he was able to rip the ball down the field, he was pretty successful, right?  Correct me if I’m wrong.  He was airing it out.  Those guys were going up and getting the ball."

Thanks, Wilton.  Airing it out, indeed.  Something the Michigan program hadn't seen in quite some time.  (No offense, Wilton.)  Now comes the news that the Michigan offense will be more up-tempo under Josh Gattis.  That's an even more compelling reason to let Patterson simply work on learning the new offense without worrying about about who's coming for his job.

At this point, I'm willing to chalk this up to Jim Harbaugh being Jim Harbaugh, motivating his players during spring practice (even if some of those players may not require said motivation).  But when fall camp opens, I'd better hear a lot of "Shea is doing a really great job mastering Josh's new offense" and nothing about how the QB depth chart is in flux.

Pays of Future Past

Apologies for the headline pun, and kudos to the inspiration, but when talking about the latest astronomical baseball contracts, one must look simultaneously at the past while predicting the future.

Do I know for sure that the Padres absolutely overpaid for Manny Machado? Or that the Phillies will certainly regret the size and scope of the contract they gave to Bryce Harper? No, of course not.

But I do know that historically speaking, most of the baseball contracts of the 10-year, 9-figure variety that teams have handed out were mistakes for the teams that proffered them. As reference, here is a list of the five players in in baseball history who had signed a deal worth $240 million or more prior to this off-season:

Notice a trend? Stanton, traded. A-Rod: first deal, traded, second deal, released. Cano, just traded. Doesn't seem like a ringing endorsement on behalf of management.

What about the other two still with the teams that signed them? One could argue that after a slow start, Pujols has been a good player for the Angels. But maybe Anaheim thought they were paying $24 million annually for the All-Star with 11 top-five MVP finishes, including three trophies, instead of the solid contributor who managed to crack the top 20 only twice since. Less could be said for Cabrera, who has struggled with injuries and age since signing that bank-breaking extension in 2014.

Yet a mega-deal's impact can extend beyond just on-field performance. For that, we can look to Zack Greinke.  

Even with the enormous payouts to Harper and Machado, Greinke still owns the title as highest-paid player: his six-year, $206.5 million contract with the Diamondbacks works out to $34.4 million per year. Relatively speaking, he's been worth it: Greinke has a 45-25 record and a 3.53 E.R.A for Arizona over three seasons. But that doesn't tell the real story.

Arizona's gamble on Greinke -- an ace leading an ascendant team into post-season glory -- hasn't panned out. Essentially admitting defeat this off-season, the D-backs shipped All-Star Paul Goldschmidt to St. Louis and lost A.J. Pollock and Patrick Corbin to free agency. That has left the team's payroll "comically top-heavy":

Greinke will make nearly five times the salary of any of his teammates; the next highest-paid Diamondback is outfielder David Peralta, at $7 million. Hall said the Greinke contract had made it harder to afford other premium talent, but the team was still happy to have him.

And there it is: despite the fact that Greinke has essentially lived up to the outsized expectations of his contract, the Diamondbacks haven't won. And now they can no longer afford to try.

If the Phillies win the World Series before they inevitably have to trade Harper, then the deal is a winner. You can't put a price on a championship. The same applies for San Diego, though maybe even making a playoff appearance or two and being relevant would be enough return for the Padres before Machado gets shipped out. But the more likely scenarios, those that have played out with near regularity, don't come with a storybook ending.