Something that impresses me about Alabama’s football program is that far from any major national population center, not directly affiliated with any one especially moneyed industry or any one especially moneyed group of people, not located within one of the six most productive football recruiting states (TX, FL, CA, GA, OH, LA), historically great but with a long gap in their dominance prior to the Saban era, the Tide became the best program in the history of the sport, the dynasty of the most difficult decade to dominate (which is almost always the most recent decade). We accept Alabama as dominant, but think on it for a little while, and it doesn’t quite make sense. Yes, they’re right in between Florida and Georgia and Louisiana. Yes, they’re not too far from other recruiting hotbeds in Texas and Ohio. Yes, they have that historic level of success. Yes, there’s money there. But why has Alabama succeeded at a level USC, LSU, Florida, Texas, and Georgia haven’t matched?
The answer, some might offer, is Nick Saban, and it’s a fair answer. Nick Saban is arguably the best coach within the context of his sport of any coach in American history. But the thing about Nick Saban is that everywhere he’s succeeded, he’s had access to the best talent in the game. It would be one thing if Saban was winning with top-ten/not-top-five recruiting classes. That isn’t what’s happened, though. He’s always had the absolute best recruits. And with Alabama cleaning up on this year’s recruiting rankings, holding off Georgia while Texas A&M reels, the message is evident: Even in the NIL era, even in the era where money matters most, Alabama can recruit like no one else. This has to largely be Saban (and given recruiting is such an essential part of the college football coaching role), but there is also very clearly a lot of money there, and the fact there is that money there indicates a commitment to the program from the broader University of Alabama community that Florida and Georgia and Texas and the others might not be matching, or at least aren’t exceeding by as much as they need to in order to make up for the coach piece of the recruiting gap.
Ten-Bid Big 12?
Could the Big 12 send every team in the league to the NCAA Tournament? The indication is that we’re close. All ten teams are in the KenPom top 50, and generally the cut line for at-large bids is somewhere between 40 and 50. All ten teams project to finish the regular season at least three games above .500, just beyond the line where overall win-loss record recently looks like it affects teams’ selection chances. It’s a little bit like a game of spades in that everyone could get their bid but results would have to follow very expected lines, but the path is there. There are only two Q3 losses across the league right now. There are no Q4 losses. If Iowa State and Oklahoma State each just do a little better than expected, and if Kansas State and TCU and Oklahoma and Texas Tech hit their marks, everyone’s in business. This league is something else, and what a sendoff to the ten-team era this would be.
How Good Are the Mets? What That Tells Us About Baseball:
I *think* FanGraphs’s Depth Charts system is up to date on the Mets, because it’s showing 4.9 projected WAR at third base and I don’t know how it gets there without Carlos Correa. With that, the Mets now have the best roster in baseball. But. It’s only a fifth of a win better than that of the Yankees, and it’s not a full win better than that of the Padres, and all of Atlanta, Tampa Bay, Toronto, and Houston are within five games when you round. The Mets are good, but this is not an overwhelming roster when the numbers are actually run, and a question with that is…how?
At the moment, the answer is partially “designated hitter,” where a projected Daniel Vogelbach-led assortment leaves much to be desired. The Mets are more than two and a half wins above replacement level at all positions except DH, and while they’re still at 1.8 there, that’s a big step behind the Yankees’ weakest link (their bullpen, which can be a later-developing part of the free agent market). The DH position is very simple to address—sign more good bats—and maybe the Mets will address it. But even if they do, they won’t be meaningfully better on paper than the Yankees or the Padres, and that gets us to the other part of the answer, which is that it’s impossible to build an MLB roster that is far and away the best in the league.
Baseball’s unique parity is often attributed to the nature of the sport—the finnicky, random, large-sample-necessitating ethos that defines the game. But an undermentioned part of the equation is that at the MLB level, it’s very difficult for one player to be a ton better than another. The Mets have one of the best shortstops in the game. The Mets have one of the best third basemen in the game. The Mets have two of the best starting pitchers in the game. The Mets have one of the best first basemen in the game. But even with all of that, other teams are just about as good. Because other players are just about as good, if not a smidgen better here or there. In college baseball, the best teams all win 75% of their games. You can amass talent at the college level that really does dwarf your competition. You can’t do that in the Majors. No matter how much money you spend.
**
Viewing schedule for tonight, second screen rotation in italics:
College Basketball (a selection)
- 7:00 PM EST: Michigan vs. UNC (ESPN)
- 9:00 PM EST: TCU @ Utah (P12N)
Bowl Game
- 9:00 PM EST: New Orleans Bowl: Western Kentucky vs. South Alabama (ESPN)
NBA (best game, plus the Bulls)
- 7:00 PM EST: Milwaukee @ Cleveland (League Pass)
- 7:30 PM EST: Bulls @ Atlanta (League Pass)
NHL (best game)
- 9:30 PM EST: Edmonton @ Dallas (TNT)
