It's Bad at Michigan

This will almost certainly be Jim Harbaugh's last season as Head Coach of the Michigan football team.  He'll finish the season, then hand in his resignation pretty much immediately after the Wolverines' final game.  And by resignation, I mean "resignation."  Because whether he leaves for the NFL (which I'm sure will be the official "reason") or not, he's done at Michigan.  There's no way he can't be.  

Harbaugh already served a three-game suspension at the beginning of this season, a sanction that Michigan self-imposed against him because of recruiting violations during the COVID-19 dead period.  The NCAA investigation into that is still ongoing, and it's very possible Harbaugh could still face a stiffer penalty from the NCAA.  That, really, is child's play compared to the latest allegations against the Michigan football program, though.

Michigan is now also embroiled in a sign-stealing scandal that sounds bad on the surface, then gets much worse with every detail that emerges.  Over a period of several years, a Michigan football staff member bought tickets to games involving upcoming opponents and spent the entire game recording the sideline for the sole purpose of seeing their signals.  All of the tickets were in the same general area--on the opposite side of the field, high enough to see the entire sideline.  So, yeah, it was both well-planned and elaborate.

The staff member, Connor Stalions, used his own credit card to purchase the tickets, so it was easy enough to track the transactions.  Sure enough, he bought tickets at 12 of the 13 other Big Ten stadiums, as well as for some home games of potential College Football Playoff opponents, both directly from the school and on the secondary market.  There are also records that he bought tickets to the last two SEC Championship Games.  And, since Stalions couldn't go to every game himself, he solicited others to attend some of them in his place, with specific instructions for what he wanted them to do in exchange for the ticket.

Stalions was evidently the ringleader of the scheme, and he's been suspended with pay by Michigan while the investigation plays out.  According to what's been reported, he maintained the server where the video was uploaded, which Harbaugh and the assistant coaches also had access to.  Whether Stalions was acting on his own or at the coaching staff's direction is unclear.  Either way, though, somebody within the program knows something. 

Harbaugh claims to have no knowledge of the scheme.  What and how much he does or doesn't know is irrelevant, however.  Because he's the head coach and everything that happens in the program is ultimately the head coach's responsibility.  It doesn't matter what staffer commits the violation and whether the head coach is directly involved or not.  Even if he doesn't know, he should.  He's the one in charge, so, ultimately, he's the one to blame.  Which, frankly, is the way it should be.

Taken in isolation, the sign stealing thing would be bad.  Then, when you throw in the fact that Michigan is already being investigated and likely facing sanctions because of the recruiting violations, that makes it that much worse.  Especially when you consider that the sign stealing was blatant cheating that directly impacted games.  If they weren't gonna get nailed before, they almost certainly will now.

Not surprisingly, the rest of the Big Ten is not very happy about the situation.  And, frankly, who can blame them?  They also know that an NCAA investigation will take at least a year and Harbaugh will likely be long gone by then, so the pressure's on Big Ten Commissioner Tony Petitti to do something about it now, which he has the authority to do under the conference's sportsmanship policy.  And if illegally taping your opponents doesn't violate the sportsmanship policy, I don't know what does!

There were two separate video calls with Petitti and Big Ten members this week--one with the football coaches, one with the athletic directors.  Both continued for nearly an hour after Michigan hung up so that they could discuss everything freely.  The coaches were obviously very passionate.  The athletic directors were more direct.  They both gave the same clear message, though.  The Big Ten needs to do something.

What he'll ultimately do is anybody's guess.  So is the timeline.  Petitti has to deal with this essentially in real time, all while the NCAA conducts its investigation.  He's had conversations with the NCAA, though, and wants a clear set of facts before he makes any sort of determination about potential punishment.  And, the very fact that he's been in touch with the NCAA and vice versa indicates the seriousness of the situation.

It's still way too early for Petitti to make any decision about Michigan.  He still needs to talk to the Big Ten presidents (and probably the NCAA again) to get their take.  It does seem clear that he'll eventually do something, though.  The integrity of the conference's competition has been compromised, which cannot be ignored.  However, an executive committee will likely have to review whatever punishment is suggested to make sure it's appropriate.

Banning Michigan from the Big Ten Championship Game would seem to be the most logical and reasonable penalty.  I don't think their opponents would accept anything less.  Especially with the preponderance of evidence in this case.  You don't want to act to quickly either, though.  Because rushing to judgment before concluding an investigation could be just as bad.

As a result, it'll probably be a while before Michigan is disciplined by the Big Ten for the sign stealing scandal.  That's little consolation for their opponents, of course, since it looks like one of the best teams in the country will still be eligible for the Big Ten Championship Game and College Football Playoff this season.  And, by the time they do, the key perpetrators (Harbaugh and Stalions) will almost certainly be gone.

One thing seems clear, though.  There's no escaping this for Jim Harbaugh.  Not when it involves clear cheating.  Not when the entire conference is impacted.  Not when the NCAA is already investigating the program.  This is the beginning of the end for him at Michigan.  There's no way around it.

No More NIT As We Knew It

The best thing about the NCAA Tournament is the upsets.  Every year, there's at least one mid-major school or champion of a small conference that beats a Power 6 team or, even if they don't get the win, they make it a game.  There's always that Cinderella team that America falls in love with, and it's usually a team from outside the Power 6 where the country is finding out just how good they are.  As it turns out, there are some pretty good teams outside the six major conferences and Gonzaga.

There are also plenty of good teams that lose in their conference tournament at don't get to play in the Big Dance as a result.  Those teams were always guaranteed to at least play in the postseason, though, since the NIT gave an automatic bid to any regular season conference champion that didn't make the NCAA Tournament.  It was a nice reward for a good season that no one seemed to have an issue with and most actually agreed was a good thing.

So, of course, leave it to the NCAA to take something good and mess with it.  Because those NIT auto bids for regular season champions are now a thing of the past.  Instead, they've been replaced by something no one asked for.  The "top two teams" from each of the six major conferences that didn't make the tournament, regardless of record, will not only be guaranteed an NIT bid, they'll also be guaranteed a home game.

Who exactly was clamoring for the mediocre ninth- and 10th-place teams in the Big Ten or 10th- and 11-place teams in the ACC to be in the NIT over a 28-4 Conference USA team that lost in the semifinals on a buzzer beater?  That Conference USA would actually want to play in the NIT, by the way.  While the Power 6 team almost certainly would not.  Especially if that team is at or below .500 overall.  (North Carolina actually declined to even be considered for the NIT last season.)

And what if they fired their coach?  Or if they have players who are either entering the NBA Draft or the transfer portal?  It's already become a pretty regular thing for NFL Draft prospects to opt out of playing in their team's bowl game.  Why would it be any different in basketball?  The NCAA Tournament is one thing.  Meaningless NIT games are something else entirely.

Frankly, that's the reason the higher-seeded teams end up losing their first- or second-round home games in the NIT.  Because their opponent is much more motivated than they are.  The teams that know they're headed to the NIT play like they want to be there.  The ones that just miss the NCAA Tournament play like they don't.  I'm not sure how guaranteeing more disappointed major conference teams NIT bids will make that any better.

Last season's NIT final was between two Conference USA teams--North Texas and UAB.  While not a sexy matchup, it ended up being a pretty good game.  I don't even think ESPN, which has had exclusive broadcast rights to the NIT for years, minded the matchup.  I suspect it was the host committee in Las Vegas, which now hosts the NIT semifinals and championship game.  They want the "sexy" matchup, even if it's entirely unsexy.

It's also worth mentioning that there was also very little actual need to make this declaration.  Five of the six major conferences had at least two teams in last year's NIT.  The only one that didn't was the Big 12, which placed seven teams in the NCAA Tournament and had an eighth team, Oklahoma State, just miss out and get the top overall seed in the NIT instead.  So, that's eight of 10 conference teams in either the NCAA Tournament or NIT.  New Big 12 members Cincinnati and Central Florida also played in the NIT last season, when they were both in the American.

All four No. 1 seeds, which automatically go to the "First Four Out" of the NCAA Tournament, were from Power 6 conferences.  While they didn't all host due to some having scheduling conflicts, nine of the 16 seeded teams came from the six leagues.  So, qualification and representation for the major conferences in the NIT wasn't even actually an issue.  It seems unlikely that they'd get more than two or three teams per conference, anyway, since it's only a 32-team field and most of the 36 NCAA at-large selections will come from those same six conferences.

What that means is the NIT is "stuck" with only a handful of middle-of-the-road major conference teams to choose from.  The rest of the field is primarily going to be mid-majors anyway.  Even with those two guaranteed spots for the Power 6, they'll still need to take multiple teams from leagues like the Mountain West or Missouri Valley or American.  What I fear is that those teams are the ones who'll suffer.  Because this announcement sure made it seem like their biggest concern is no longer how good a team is.  It's what conference they're in above anything else.

Now, there's an easy compromise here.  The rest of the 20-team NIT field will be filled by at-large teams.  The number of NIT auto bids that ended up going to regular season conference champions was generally anywhere between eight and 10.  So why not give 8-10 of those 20 remaining spots to the regular season conference champions?  But, that idea actually makes sense, so of course they won't do it.

Once even bigger than the NCAA Tournament, the NIT's prominence has dropped significantly.  It received a little boost after the launch of those other (unnecessary) Division I postseason tournaments, but is still nothing like what it once was.  It still meant something, though.  Including the regular season conference champions gave it that meaning.  Those teams knew they were still going to the postseason, and, if all went well and they reached the semifinals, they had a chance to play in Madison Square Garden, where all the biggest college basketball games are played.

Then they moved the finals out of Madison Square Garden and diminished the NIT even further.  This latest move pushes the event further towards irrelevance.  Because they're essentially turning it into the Independence Bowl (or whichever other December bowl game between 6-6 teams you prefer).  It's a self-inflicted wound, too.  There was no reason to take something everybody loves about college basketball (the chance of the low-major team pulling an upset against one of the big boys) and get rid of it simply so the Power 6 conferences could have even more opportunity.

With what college sports has become, however, this sadly could've been predicted.  That's why I'm not surprised by it.  Not in the slightest.  Especially not with the next round of expansion coming next year and a pair of 18-team conferences on the way.  There's only 100 spots available between the NCAA Tournament and NIT.  Only 68 of those are at-large teams.  You knew it was just a matter of time until they started looking for a way for the same conferences to get as many of those 68 as possible.  The little guys be damned!  Congratulations on your 28-4 season.  You really should've won your conference tournament, though.  Because why would we pick you for the NIT when we can take a 15-17 Illinois team instead?

2023 Picks, Week 8

Much like network cross-flexing, I'll never understand the NFL's new system for how they do the byes in the 18-game season.  For some random reason, there's a full complement of 16 games this week.  Then we go back to teams having byes next week.  Also for some random reason, even though MLB is avoiding Thursday and Sunday nights with the World Series schedule, they scheduled a terrible Sunday night game (Bears-Chargers) and didn't flex it out.  Like I said, I don't get it.

Thursday Night: Buffalo (Win)

Rams (3-4) at Cowboys (4-2): Dallas-Man, did Kevin Burkhart luck out!  This is FOX's #1 game, so he's on the call with Greg Olsen.  He also does MLB pregame.  Fortunately for him, the World Series and his NFL assignment this week are located across the street from each other!  It feels like forever since Dallas has been home after two straight on the West Coast, followed by their bye week.  They'll enjoy the spoils of being back at AT&T Stadium.

Vikings (3-4) at Packers (2-4): Green Bay-Minnesota is on a roll.  They started 1-4, then earned back-to-back wins, including that upset over the 49ers on Monday night.  The Packers are going the other way.  They've lost three straight, although the last two were close ones at AFC West opponents.  So, I don't read too much into that.  A win here puts them back ahead of Minnesota in the standings.

Falcons (4-3) at Titans (2-4): Atlanta-The NFC South isn't the strongest division.  I get that.  But the Falcons are still in first place.  And they've gotten there by winning the close games.  Three of their four wins are by one, two and three points.  So, basically, they're this year's Vikings.  Expect another close one in Nashville against a Titans team that's better than its 2-4 record.  Other than that blowout in Cleveland, they've been in every game.  Different week, similar result for them here I think.

Saints (3-4) at Colts (3-4): New Orleans-We're just about halfway through the season and I still have no idea what to make of the New Orleans Saints.  They started out 2-0, but have lost four out of five since.  The one win during that stretch, though, was an absolute annihilation of the Patriots in New England.  The Patriots aren't really that good.  I get it.  But are the Saints that team, the one that lost to the Texans and Jaguars, or something in between?  Hopefully we'll find out as their tour of the AFC South concludes.

Patriots (2-5) at Dolphins (5-2): Miami-When these two met at Foxboro in Week 2, I don't think anyone could've expected the trajectory each of their seasons would take.  The Patriots might've salvaged any remaining hope they have with that upset of the Bills last week.  Which actually helped out Miami big time since it kept the Dolphins in first place.  It also got that 300th win monkey off Belichick's back.  This week, things revert to form and the high-scoring Dolphins pile up some points on that New England defense.

Jets (3-3) at Giants (2-5): Jets-It's the first regular season meeting in four years for the two MetLife Stadium teams.  It's a Giants home game, but I have a feeling there's gonna be a lot of green in the stadium.  The Giants are coming off a win last week against Washington, while the Jets had their bye.  Throw out a stinker against New England, and they've been very good at home this season.  Even though this is technically a "road" game, it's still in their stadium, and the Jets defense is certainly capable of shutting down the Giants offense.

Jaguars (5-2) at Steelers (4-2): Pittsburgh-This one actually has the potential to be a very entertaining game.  The Jaguars have won four straight and lead the AFC South, while Pittsburgh has posted back-to-back seven-point victories.  The Steelers' point differential this season is -24, yet they're 4-2.  So, they know how to figure it out late in close games.  Like they did two weeks ago against the Ravens, last week against the Rams and this week against the Jaguars.

Eagles (6-1) at Commanders (3-4): Philadelphia-Washington nearly beat the Eagles a few weeks ago, holding the lead late in the fourth quarter before Philly pulled it out in overtime.  The Commanders then went and got their butts kicked by the Bears, while the Eagles did end up losing to the Jets.  They rebounded with a nice win over the Dolphins on Sunday night last week.  This is the last game before a brutal six-week stretch, and eight of their last nine are against playoff teams from last season.  So, basically, they need to go into DC and take care of business.

Texans (3-3) at Panthers (0-6): Carolina-Carolina is still looking for its first win.  It may come this week.  I don't know why, but I really like this matchup for them.  The Texans are playing their third of four consecutive games against the NFC South, so if nothing else, the Panthers can use that film to see what to do against their division rivals.  Houston has been really good over the past four weeks and looks at this one as a good opportunity to go over .500.  Yet I like the Panthers to finally get in the win column.

Browns (4-2) at Seahawks (4-2): Seattle-In the movie Draft Day, these two made a deal for the No. 1 pick.  Neither one is in contention for it in the actual 2023 season.  They ARE both in the playoff hunt, however.  After the high of that win over San Francisco, Cleveland played a very entertaining shootout in Indianapolis last week.  The Browns didn't seal it until Kareem Hunt scored with 15 seconds left.  Now they must deal with one of the most unpleasant experiences in football.  Visiting Seattle and the 12th Man.

Chiefs (6-1) at Broncos (2-5): Kansas City-Some division rivals don't even meet until December.  Meanwhile, these two play twice in 17 days in October, then call it a season.  That Thursday night game gave us the very unique 19-8 score.  This one should be much different.  The result should be similar, though.  The Chiefs make it seven in a row.

Ravens (5-2) at Cardinals (1-6): Baltimore-Even if Kyler Murray were healthy, the Ravens would be heavy favorites in this game.  Without him playing, well, let's just say those chances at landing the No. 1 pick keep improving by the week.  We saw what the Ravens did to the Lions last week.  I can only imagine what they'll do to the Cardinals!

Bengals (3-3) at 49ers (5-2): San Francisco-Boy, are the 49ers sure happy to be home!  They started out 5-0, then went to Cleveland and Minnesota and lost both.  Now it's back to the Bay Area for the first time in three weeks, where the Bengals await.  Cincinnati was buoyed by that Monday night win over the Rams a few weeks ago and has won its last two to get back to .500.  They'll slip back under, as San Francisco gets back in the win column.

Bears (2-5) at Chargers (2-4): Chargers-Why do NBC and the NFL think that people want to watch this game on Sunday night?  There were seriously no better options you could flex into primetime in its place?  Justin Fields won't even be playing, so the Bears will have that guy who played last week at quarterback again.  Although, he had a good game and they did beat the Raiders.  We'll see if he can do it again.  My guess is no.  The Chargers really need a win here and they should get it.

Raiders (3-4) at Lions (5-2): Detroit-I'd make the same complaint about the Raiders being on in primetime again as I made about the Sunday night game, but why bother?  This one at least involves the Lions, who are playing a home Monday night game for the first time in forever.  And, thanks to the 49ers' loss last week, they're suddenly in the mix for home field.  Yes, there's still a long way to go.  We aren't even halfway through the season yet.  But it is exciting to be talking about the Detroit Lions like this!  They're gonna be 6-2 at the end of October!

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-6
Overall: 67-40

Texas and Arizona

We've officially come full circle.  I started this blog right around this time 13 years ago...and my first few posts pretty much all revolved around the World Series, which included the Texas Rangers that year.  Now, the Rangers are back in the Fall Classic, just as I predicted.  Their opponent I definitely did not see coming, however.  There are very few, if any, people who thought the Diamondbacks would be here, yet here they are.

What we're left with is the third-ever all-wild card World Series (after 2002 & 2014), with the winner guaranteed to be the eighth wild card World Series champion and the first since the 2019 Nationals.  This also the third-ever World Series between two expansion teams (after Royals-Mets in 2015 & Nationals-Astros in 2019).  And we'll see a long drought come to an end.  The Rangers have been in existence since 1961, moved to Dallas in 1971, and have never won.  Arizona's only previous World Series appearance, meanwhile, was its championship 22 years ago.  Most of the time since then, they've been a sub-.500 team.  So, it's been a long time coming for both of them.

You know what's crazy about the Diamondbacks making it?  The dates of this year's World Series are exactly the same as the dates in 2001.  So, every World Series game in Diamondbacks history will be exactly 22 years apart.  It's also crazy to think that this is the second year of this playoff format where the top six teams in each league make it...and the No. 6 seed in the NL has reached the World Series both times!  Pre-2022, the Phillies and Diamondbacks don't even make the playoffs.  And they both ended up in the World Series.

It's also crazy to think that both of these teams lost 100 games in 2021.  So did the Orioles.  The two World Series participants and the team that had the best record in the American League.  Proof that it doesn't take long if you do it right, and maybe some hope for White Sox and Rockies fans (sorry, A's and Royals fans, but it'll be a more than two years for your teams).

In 2001, the Diamondbacks were a juggernaut anchored by two dominant starting pitchers--Curt Schilling and Hall of Famer Randy Johnson.  This year, it's been a similar formula.  And, while they're not Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling, there's no denying that Arizona doesn't get here without Zac Gallen and Merrill Kelly.  And they're gonna need them to step up one more time.  But, hey, if they each win both of their starts, that's the four wins the Diamondbacks need.

The problem, of course, is that Gallen and Kelly will be going against Nathan Eovaldi and Jordan Montgomery, then the Rangers have Max Scherzer waiting in the wings for Game 3 (and Game 7, should it get there).  Eovaldi is one of the best postseason pitchers of this generation.  His teams are undefeated in his starts and his only loss came in arguably his best, most clutch performance (when he threw six innings of relief in that epic 18-inning Game 3 at Dodger Stadium in 2018).  Montgomery, a guy the Yankees couldn't trust in the postseason, has been proving them more and more wrong with every start.  And, even though he wasn't vintage Max Scherzer in his two ALCS starts, there are worse things than having a future Hall of Famer lined up to start Game 7.

I love the approach the Rangers took to building this team.  After the 100-loss season, they went out and acted like the big-market franchise they are, signing Marcus Semien and Corey Seager back-to-back in the winter of 2021-22.  Then, last offseason, they addressed the pitching, bringing in Jacob deGrom (among others).  The ironic thing is that, due to injuries, they had to completely rebuild the rotation at the trade deadline.  Eovaldi, Montgomery and Scherzer all joined the team midseason.  They stand to potentially start six World Series games between them.

All season long, the Rangers' bullpen has been considered a weakness.  During the postseason, it's been anything but.  There was that one hiccup in Game 5 against Houston, but that's really been it.  The Diamondbacks' bullpen, meanwhile, is considered a strength, and it's one area where Arizona is thought to have the advantage.  I'm not so sure, though.  Especially if the Rangers get length out of their starters and don't need to rely on the bullpen as much.  Arizona, meanwhile, figures to go to the bullpen fairly regularly and has to figure out something for the three games Gallen and Kelly don't start.

Offensively, it's clearly advantage Texas.  The Rangers had all kinds of issues with the bat during their three ALCS home games.  Whatever was wrong, though, they figured it out in Houston.  Adolis Garcia especially.  Maybe throwing at him wasn't the smartest idea.  Because all the Astros did was piss him off and light a fire under his ass!  He hasn't stopped hitting since!

Speaking of guys who haven't stopped hitting, NLCS MVP Ketel Marte has at least one in every game this postseason.  That's insane!  The rest of the Arizona offense did just enough, and they sure took advantage of the Phillies' bats going quiet in Games 6 & 7.  But they also swept a pair of division winners in Milwaukee and the Dodgers, winning four of those five games on the road, so count them out at your own risk.

Texas started the postseason 7-0, with six of those wins coming on the road--against Tampa Bay, Baltimore and Houston.  The Rangers' road record this postseason, in fact, is 8-0, while they're just 1-3 at home.  The ALCS became the second playoff series in MLB history where the road team won every game, joining the 2019 World Series (the Astros lost both of those series).  The Diamondbacks, meanwhile, are 6-2 on the road in the playoffs.  They sure haven't looked like an 84-win team that barely got the last spot in the NL playoff field.

MLB.com had a fascinating article today with all of the memorable moments that have happened at Globe Life Field since it opened in 2020.  It's hosted multiple no-hitters and was the site of Aaron Judge's 62nd home run.  None of those were Rangers moments.  The first games in the stadium played in front of fans weren't even Rangers games, either.  They were in the 2020 World Series.

Chalk that up as another quirky thing about Globe Life Field.  This is the stadium's second World Series, but its first actually involving the home team.  Although, there is one member of the Rangers--Corey Seager--who'll have played in every World Series game in Globe Life Field history.  Seager was the World Series MVP in 2020, when the Dodgers beat the Rays in a series played entirely in the stadium.

Well, now the Rangers have a chance to actually add a moment of their own in their own ballpark!  And they'll have to.  Because, as good as they've been on the road, the Rangers need to win at least one home game if they want to win the first World Series title in franchise history. 

Their last appearance has painful memories.  A strike away twice in Game 6 in 2011, only for David Freese to become an October hero.  This year, things should be different.  The Rangers are the better team, and ending up as a wild card team after leading the AL West virtually all year I think was actually a good thing.  It served to motivate them, and they stormed right through the three best teams in the American League en route to the pennant.

There's also the Bruce Bochy factor.  The Rangers are the third team the future Hall of Fame manager has taken to the World Series.  He was there for San Francisco's run of three championships in five years from 2010-14 (the first of which came against Texas).  In his first season with the Rangers, he gets his fourth ring and Texas gets its first championship.  Rangers in six.  They finally won't have to watch somebody else celebrate on their home field.  They'll have a celebration of their own.

Game 1 or Game 7?

I have to admit that I'm not the first one to think of this particular topic.  My friend, Jim Henneman, wrote about it a few years ago, and I completely agree with him.  Although, I'm gonna take it one further.  Jim made a pretty compelling argument that your best starter should pitch Game 2 of a playoff series instead of Game 1.  I'm thinking a case could be made to hold him off until Game 3, though.

The traditional wisdom has always been that you start your ace in your first playoff game, your second-best pitcher in the next game, etc.  You can't always line it up, of course, since they may not be available for their desired game based on when they last pitched.  But, if teams are able, the set it up so that their No. 1 pitcher starts Game 1, then as many games as possible after that.  That's one of the advantages of all the off days in the postseason (and the byes into the Division Series for the 1 & 2 seeds).

In a five-game series, you absolutely want your ace on the mound in Game 1.  That way, it flips back around to him in Game 5, which is exactly what you want.  Although, with the way the Division Series schedules are set up, the teams in one league can get away with just three starters, which would put their Game 2 starter in line for Game 5 should they go that route.

A seven-game series is a completely different animal, though.  And that's where the conventional wisdom of your No. 1 guy in Game 1 might not necessarily be the best plan.  Because, if you think about it, Games 2 & 6 are much more pivotal than Games 1 & 5.  So that might be when you want your most trusted arm on the mound.

Of course, you're not gonna win in the postseason if you only have one starting pitcher.  The 1990s Braves dynasty had three Hall of Famers, so it really didn't matter what order Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz pitched in.  (They actually had the ideal setup--Maddux to start, Glavine in the pivotal middle games, Smoltz in the winner-take-all finale.)  But most teams don't have three Hall of Fame starting pitchers.  They're lucky to have three really good ones.  More likely, they'll have two guys they really trust.

That's why I think, and hear me out on this, your best move might be using your No. 3 starter in Game 1.  If you think about it, Game 1 is arguably the least-important game in a seven-game series.  Sure, you want to win it and get a 1-0 lead.  But if you lose Game 1 with your best pitcher on the mound, the pressure's on, and you don't have him again until Game 5...if it gets that far.  If you lose Game 1 and haven't used your ace yet, though, you're in a better position.

Meanwhile, think about the situation in Games 2 & 6.  Someone has to have a series lead in even-numbered games.  So, in Game 2 there are three possible scenarios.  You'll either be up 2-0, down 0-2 or tied 1-1.  Which means whoever's pitching Game 2 is either trying to give you a 2-0 lead or prevent you from going down 2-0.  Then that same pitcher is on the mound again in Game 6, which is even more pivotal.

Game 7 obviously gets the most attention because it's winner-take-all, but Game 6 is also always an elimination game.  The Game 6 starter (who's usually also the Game 2 starter) is either pitching to keep his team's season alive or end the other team's.  Frankly, it's the highest-pressure game of the entire series.  So, I'd want my best guy going then.  For most teams, that's not an issue.  The Phillies have Wheeler and Nola.  The Diamondbacks have Gallen and Kelly.  But who's your third starter?

Brandon Pfaadt and Ranger Suarez will be starting Game 7 of the NLCS.  Not exactly a who's who.  Had they started Game 1, however, then both teams would have one of their big guys available.  Yes, I understand that it's all hands on deck with the exception of the Game 6 starter (and even sometimes he's good to go in relief).  But if you've got a starter who you can count on going deep into the game, you don't need to rely on your entire staff in the most pivotal game of the season.

Of course, that wasn't always the case.  Back when teams used only three starters throughout the playoffs, your best starter would go in Game 1 because you wanted him to pitch three times, with his third start coming in Game 7.  Who can forget that epic Game 7 in 1991 with Hall of Famers Jack Morris (in his third start of the series) and John Smoltz throwing up zero after zero?

However, those days are long gone.  The last pitcher to make three starts in a World Series was Curt Schilling in 2001.  The 2009 Yankees also went with a three-man rotation, so CC Sabathia would've had that World Series gone seven, and Madison Bumgarner had that ridiculous five-inning relief appearance in Game 7 two days after starting Game 5 in 2014.  But, for the most part, you're only seeing a starting pitcher twice in a postseason series.

Here's the thing, though, your Game 5 starter (aka, your best guy) usually ends up pitching out of the bullpen in Game 7 at some point.  Why?  Because he's the best arm you've got.  All the more reason to consider making it so that you can get more length from your top guys in Games 6 & 7.

There's a valid counterargument that there might not be a Game 6 or 7 if you don't use your top pitchers earlier in the series.  If you've only got two starters you can count on, you want them to both pitch as much as possible.  You especially don't want to hold one back for a Game 7 that you're hoping doesn't even happen.  But what if it does and you're left with your No. 3 option to pitch the most important game of the season?

That's why Texas will have a huge advantage if the World Series goes the distance.  They'll have Max Scherzer in line for Game 7.  Of course, not every team has the luxury of having a Max Scherzer as their third starter in the playoffs.  Which only helps emphasize my point.  You're most likely gonna have to win a game with either your third or fourth starter regardless.  Would you rather that be Game 1, when you've still got a chance to come back if you lose, and you know you'll have your top two guys in four of the final six games?  Or in a Game 7 where there's no margin for error?

Yes, it's a little crazy.  Yes, it's a little out there.  But so were things like an opener, an infield overshift, and a pitch clock once upon a time.  If you've got three solid starters, you don't need to worry about it.  If you don't, you have to figure something out, so why not try it?  The hope, of course, is to avoid a Game 7, which would render the idea moot.  But wouldn't you want to be prepared for one just in case?

For a team to get to this point, they have to have a good pitching staff.  A pitching staff that's good enough to feel comfortable with whoever goes out there.  I get that.  And I get that holding your best starter until Game 3 is most likely ever happening if the LCS goes seven and you don't have much of a choice in the matter.  But that's when I'd rather have my horse going anyway.  Because Game 7 is a whole lot more important than Game 1!

2023 Picks, Week 7

Last week, when I was wondering aloud whether the 49ers and Eagles would both be undefeated when they played each other, I figured probably not.  I just wasn't sure who'd lose first.  Little did I know, they'd both get their first loss within a few hours of each other on the road against an AFC team you wouldn't expect.  Or maybe we should've with the Browns' and Jets' defenses.

As a result of those losses, we've now got a whole bunch of 5-1 teams.  Five of them in fact.  Although, with the Eagles meeting the Dolphins this week, we do know that they won't all be 6-1.  (There are also five 1-5 teams and the Panthers are 0-6, so it's basically half the league that's either in a really good or really bad position.)

Thursday Night: New Orleans (Loss)

Raiders (3-3) at Bears (1-5): Chicago-Sure, they haven't been playing the best opponents.  But the Bears have certainly looked much, much better over the past few weeks.  So good, in fact, that I can actually see them winning this week.  The Raiders have won two in a row, but those were both at home.  Let's see how they play on the road.

Browns (3-2) at Colts (3-3): Cleveland-Color me surprised after the Browns completely shut down previously unbeaten San Francisco last week.  Talk about a confidence builder!  Was it a one-week thing where they simply took advantage of the matchup?  Possibly.  And teams will certainly be watching that film to make sure they know what to do against Cleveland moving forward.  Fortunately for them, even if the Colts do that, their offense still isn't good enough to do much of anything against them.

Bills (4-2) at Patriots (1-5): Buffalo-Oh, how the mighty have fallen!  If not for one play against the Jets, New England would be winless.  And, frankly, it doesn't really show signs of getting any better.  They cannot score!  Yet, despite being benched twice in the last two weeks, they're sticking with Mac Jones.  If this is Belichick's New England farewell, he surely isn't going out with a season to remember.  At least, not for the good reasons.

Commanders (3-3) at Giants (1-5): Giants-If not for some poor clock management, the Giants very well might've beaten the Bills last week.  It's amazing what a difference Saquon Barkley makes (even without Daniel Jones)!  And, now that they're done with that gauntlet of an early-season schedule, maybe they can start thinking that it's possible to turn things around.  Also, I know I keep harping on this, but it's ridiculous that their first Sunday afternoon home game of the season is in Week 7!

Falcons (3-3) at Buccaneers (3-2): Atlanta-Because the Bucs already had their bye, they're in first place by a half-game in the NFC South.  It feels like every division game in the NFC South is almost worth double, since it doesn't seem like any of those four teams has a shot at a wild card.  So, that makes this one very important for both teams.  I have a feeling Atlanta goes on the road and moves into first place.

Lions (5-1) at Ravens (4-2): Detroit-This is perhaps the most underrated game of the week.  But take a look at the standings and you'll see both the Lions and Ravens in first place.  Detroit's position atop the NFC North is much more comfortable than Baltimore's in the AFC North, and it'll stay that way after the Lions win this one.  They're proving that all of the hype surrounding them entering the season was entirely justified.

Steelers (3-2) at Rams (3-3): Rams-We found out this week that, because Stan Kroenke doesn't want to make the field wider to accommodate soccer, SoFi Stadium won't be hosting any games at the 2026 World Cup after all.  A dumb decision to be sure, but he built that place for the Rams, who'll be playing their third straight home game against the Steelers.  They lost to Philadelphia, then bounced back with a win over Arizona.  The Steelers are rested and coming off their bye, so this one could be interesting.  I do think the Rams manage to get back over .500 heading into their trip to Dallas, though.

Cardinals (1-5) at Seahawks (3-2): Seattle-San Francisco's loss suddenly makes winning the NFC West a much more attainable goal for the Seahawks.  There's still a long way to go.  I understand that.  But the schedule's about to get a whole lot harder (starting on Thanksgiving, they have a four-week stretch where they go San Francisco, Dallas, San Francisco, Philadelphia).  So, the Seahawks need to bank wins now.  And the Cardinals at home is a game they absolutely should win.

Packers (2-3) at Broncos (1-5): Green Bay-The Packers return from their bye week to visit Sean Payton's Broncos.  It's been a rough go of it for him so far during his first season in Denver, which, frankly, isn't really a surprise.  A lot of work needs to be done in order to make that team competitive again.  As for the Packers, it didn't take them long to move on from Aaron Rodgers.  A win here, and they get to 3-3.

Chargers (2-3) at Chiefs (5-1): Kansas City-That opening night loss to Detroit is now a distant memory.  Kansas City hasn't really played its best football yet, but has somehow won five in a row.  So, in other words, it's been typical Chiefs.  This week, they face the Chargers at home, and it should be business as usual.  Whether the Chiefs play well or not, they'll do what they usually do and win a division game.

Dolphins (5-1) at Eagles (5-1): Philadelphia-I've been critical of some of the Sunday Night Football selections this season, but they ended up with a good one here.  Sure, they're playing up the Jales Hurts vs. Tua angle, but they quarterback two of the best offenses in the entire NFL.  And this could end up becoming a shootout.  Somebody's getting handed their second loss.  Miami's first came in Buffalo, which is by far the best team they've faced this season.  Now they play a second good team, and the result should be the same.

49ers (5-1) at Vikings (2-4): San Francisco-While that loss was certainly unexpected, it may end up being a good thing for the 49ers.  It brought them down to Earth a little, and it took the pressure of trying to remain undefeated off them.  It'll likely end up being a minor blip, too.  When they go to Minnesota on Monday night, they'll get back on track.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-5
Overall: 59-35 

Juegos Panamericanos Santiago 2023

We're in the midst of that brief period where all six major North American sports are in action.  October means the MLB postseason, and the NFL's in the heart of its season.  The NHL just got underway and the NBA regular season begins next week.  MLS is about to wrap up, and we just saw the Las Vegas Aces knock off the New York Liberty in an exciting clinching Game 4 of the WNBA Finals.

That can only happen in October, a sure sign that it's Fall.  Another sure sign that it's Fall is that summer sports have basically wound down.  Sure, some go into the Fall or even year-round, but, for the most part, Olympic hopefuls have finished their season and are enjoying a few weeks off before they kick off an all-important Olympic season that they hope will culminate in a trip to Paris.

It sounds weird, then, to be talking about a Summer sports event only getting started now, let alone a multi-sports event.  Yet that's exactly what we have.  The 2023 Pan American Games have begun in Santiago, Chile.  Nearly 7,000 athletes from 41 countries and territories will be competing from now until Nov. 5, with Olympic berths on the line in a handful of sports.

For the most part, the Pan Am Games aren't a high priority in the United States.  In the sports with direct Olympic qualifying opportunities, the U.S. sent the full National "A" team that we'll also be seeing in Paris.  In others, such as basketball and volleyball, the U.S. turned down its bid and won't even be competing.  And in sports like track & field and swimming, the World Championships were the priority, so the U.S. team in Santiago features either athletes who didn't compete at Worlds or younger athletes who are using Pan Ams to gain international experience.

So, I can understand where the Pan Am Games sometimes get lost in the shuffle in the American consciousness.  They're a second-tier event, held with nothing close to the same reverence as the Olympics.  That would likely be the case even if the U.S. was sending all of its top-flight athletes and the Pan Am Games were taking place during the Summer.  It's especially true in the Fall with a team that isn't full of household names.

But for many of the other countries in the Americas, the Pan Am Games are a HUGE deal!  A lot of those athletes may not be good enough to qualify for the Olympics or World Championships, so the Pan Am Games aren't just a chance to represent their nation, it's the pinnacle of competition for them.  Likewise, it's the chance for their nations to shine.  While larger nations like the United States, Canada and Brazil (nations that figure to win a bunch of Olympic medals next year) will dominate the medal standings, the smaller countries in the Americas will also bring home plenty of medals.  That won't be the case next year, when those nations will celebrate any medal they win, knowing there won't be many.

There are also some sports that are part of the Pan Am Games, but not the Olympics.  So, for athletes who compete in roller sports or basque pelota or racquetball or bowling or wakeboarding/water skiing, this really is the pinnacle of international competition.  Sure, those sports have World Championships, but, unless they get Olympic recognition, this is the only time they get the chance to mingle and be teammates with athletes from other sports at an event of this magnitude.

All of that is enough for the Pan Am Games to still be worthy of our attention, which, I admit, can be difficult.  Especially since the timing of the Pan Am Games is entirely dependent on where they're being held.  But, that's what happens when North and South America are in different hemispheres and have completely opposite seasons!  Which is how we get a mid-October start for the first Pan Am Games in Chile.

I'm not sure if this is a sign of how little people care or a very forward-thinking move (maybe both), but there isn't any TV coverage of the Pan Am Games this year.  Instead, there's a dedicated Pan Am Sports streaming channel that will have live coverage of every event, with both English and Spanish commentary.  (Although, I went to watch the Opening Ceremony earlier, and it doesn't look like they have an on demand feature, which is too bad.)

While I think the streaming thing is a great idea in theory, my worry is that instead of increasing the Pan Am Games' exposure, it'll end up limiting it.  People who want to watch will seek it out, but, even though it's free, they're unlikely to draw many casual viewers.  And I have a feeling some people who want to watch won't know about the streaming channel and won't care enough to look for it, so they just won't watch at all.  So, I'm very curious to see how it actually works out.  Especially since, to my knowledge, this is the first time a major international multi-sport event is going strictly streaming.

Don't be surprised if it ends up like MLS, though.  This was the first year of the MLS deal with Apple.  It was great for the league financially, but exactly what I thought might happen did.  It didn't move the needle anywhere near the way Apple and MLS thought, and it actually might've reduced the public's awareness of MLS (which should've been capitalizing on Messi Mania) because so many people didn't have access to the games.

Although, the website is free and it isn't geoblocked.  Which means anyone, anywhere in the world can watch the Pan Am Games.  I'm not saying vast amounts of people in Europe or Asia will have any interest in watching the Americas' regional Olympics, but I'm sure there'll probably be some.  And any exposure outside of just the Americas is certainly a good thing.  In fact, I'll be curious to see what countries have the most hits and where those countries are located.

With an event like the Pan Am Games, it's worth trying something new.  And it's worth the risk.  If the streaming-only thing doesn't work, they've got four years to think about whether they want to do it again.  (And who knows what the sports media landscape will look like in 2027 anyway?)  Or maybe they decide to go the more typical route of having both linear TV and streaming broadcasts.  They could even do different things depending on what each country wants.

So, even though I bet this is the first a lot of you are even finding out that this year's Pan Am Games have started, I'm excited for them.  Maybe it's because my experience eight years ago in Toronto gave me a different appreciation for them and the passion they bring out in our friends from elsewhere in the Americas, but I'm psyched for the Pan Am Games to get underway!  Even if it's out of season to be watching ummer sports in late October/early November, I still will be.