Two years ago, summer of 2012, ESPN made a list of the top 50 basketball programs of the previous 50 years. Michigan came in 13th, two spots behind Michigan State, and I think that was fair. This was despite the decade of irrelevance under Ellerbe and Amaker. I would argue that if it weren’t for that Ed Martin-Webber-Taylor-Traylor-Bullock scandal and the following decade, Michigan would have been much higher on the list, easily above MSU and perhaps in the 6-8 range that Louisville, Indiana, and Syracuse held.
But that decade took us down several notches, only to no. 13 in ESPN’s list, but much further in the eyes of the public. After four decades of generally being one of the top Big Ten teams, we fell down to below the middle of the pack with the likes of Purdue and Minnesota, with only Northwestern and Penn State below as the bottom dwellers.
Obviously with Beilein came a culture change, with the emphasis on team success and the player accolades following. The fact that he has so quickly (going into his seventh season) made Michigan nationally relevant again is wonderful. In my opinion, Michigan is now again a top 10 program and I wouldn’t change our coaching staff for any other. Beilein obviously wants a national championship more than any of us and I believe he is smart and flexible enough to get one.
If we can make a Sweet 16 this year, it definitely further cements our status in the top 10, but I don’t think a 7 or 8 seed round of 32 loss to a 1 or 2 really hurts us. I also think that if we only lose LeVert, we’ll be about the same next year if we don’t get Dozier - so many freshmen that at least a couple are likely to make big jumps as sophomores. If we get Dozier, we will be super deep, super talented, and as experienced as we’ve been in a while. And I’m guessing our '16 class will be much closer to being wrapped up before we get to the '15-'16 season.
13 makes sense. Especially in light of recruiting…I mean, we’re sort of making that recruiting push as though we’re a top 10 team so it goes hand in hand with the struggles against top 10 programs.
Exactly. I’m not sure why MattD continues to downplay our program to the point where national writers with no agenda hold us in far higher esteem than he, a supposed fan, does. The ranking you cited is just one example; another is the recent ESPN poll ranking Beilein as the #9 coach.
I can only conclude Matt must not have been a fan during the 1980s and 1990s, or is too young to appreciate those years. But it is perplexing. His view of the program makes it seem like we are Iowa State or Gonzaga in year 7 of the Few regime. Hardly.
I’m not “downplaying” UM, we are simply not an elite program as it stands right now. We are most certainly up and coming, but we have a decent amount of work to put in before we are considered a top flight program for the long run.
LA - I simply don’t understand your inclination to think everything about UM is great. I have yet to see you
agree with a single criticism of any player, coach, or philosophy associated with UM. You overrate our program on every level in my view. Obviously, there is some inherent bias, but you fail to display minimal objectivity. In your world, JB is flawless, recruiting is flawless, our defense is adequate, we are an elite program…basically we’re the best thing since sliced bread.
Here’s a reality check…you’re simply wrong. We are an up and coming program that has experienced rejuvenation in the past 2 years, but are still not on par with elite programs in terms of long term perception and stability. We’ve come a long way, but no way does 2 years cancel the previous 20 regardless of how much you’d like it to be that way. If we were a storied program that won multiple championships and took a 20 year hiatus (think Celtics) it would be different, but we’re not.
Well this whole conversation started about recruiting. In the past couple classes, we lost 1 recruit - Booker - to Kentucky and 1 recruit - Kennard - to Duke who the coaches clearly wanted at the end of the day. I think LA and I can agree that as historical programs, we’re not at the elite level as some, but going forward, we can see a level of stability in ours that is going on 7 years with the change of culture, not just the last 2 of tournament success. I think it’s clear with the targets we’re going after in '16, our coaches want to continue the trajectory and go for a national championship rather than rest on their laurels and plateau. And personally, I think with the national brand of Michigan, we have as good a chance as anyone outside the elite few to do so. And I’m also optimistic that with 5 or so more years of Beilein and potentially 20 more with LaVall Jordan, we can get very close to that elite group, on par with what Duke’s done the past 30 years. Yes, I’m being optimistic, but not completely unrealistic.
MattD - I’ve watched Michigan basketball for a good 32 years, and Beilien is the best coach we’ve had during that time, hands down.
As a big fan of Michigan sports, I suffered through the Amaker years (10 straight years with no tourney appearance), suffered through an Ellerbe team that got utterly humiliated at the Breslin in 2000, and earlier that year fell down 35-2 to Duke at Cameron, and now I’m suffering through the seventh consecutive year of mediocre to terrible football (save 2011).
Thus, when we have a coach that has achieved as much as Beilein, and has done so after taking over a dead program, I tend to give the guy a lot of credit, as opposed to nit-picking his flaws. I’m a big picture person, and objectively, he’s getting it done. I don’t know your definition of “elite,” but sure, we are not Duke, UNC, UK (though hardly elite under Tubby/Gillespie), Kansas, or UCLA. Beyond that, I think we can and will compete with just about anyone for recruits. As Izzo’s recent experiences have shown, competing with UK and Duke for recruits has been a losing battle for him, too.
But if we “only” continue to land guys like Chatman and Wilson, JB has been quite successful with that caliber of player.
GC - just have to point out there is a distinction between cultural stability and performance stability. The former doesn’t mean much in the context of recruiting unless it is accompanied by on court success. In other words nobody cares about the culture independent of winning, so from that standpoint the first 4-5 years of JB don’t mean all that much.
MattD - I've watched Michigan basketball for a good 32 years, and Beilien is the best coach we've had during that time, hands down.
As a big fan of Michigan sports, I suffered through the Amaker years (10 straight years with no tourney appearance), suffered through an Ellerbe team that got utterly humiliated at the Breslin in 2000, and earlier that year fell down 35-2 to Duke at Cameron, and now I’m suffering through the seventh consecutive year of mediocre to terrible football (save 2011).
Thus, when we have a coach that has achieved as much as Beilein, and has done so after taking over a dead program, I tend to give the guy a lot of credit, as opposed to nit-picking his flaws. I’m a big picture person, and objectively, he’s getting it done. I don’t know your definition of “elite,” but sure, we are not Duke, UNC, UK (though hardly elite under Tubby/Gillespie), Kansas, or UCLA. Beyond that, I think we can and will compete with just about anyone for recruits. As Izzo’s recent experiences have shown, competing with UK and Duke for recruits has been a losing battle for him, too.
But if we “only” continue to land guys like Chatman and Wilson, JB has been quite successful with that caliber of player.
I can accept and agree with your contention that UM has made strides relative to the previous adminstrations. There is no doubt. I think you have erred to the extent that you make no distinction between internal progress and national standing and perception. In other words, sure, we’re great relative to what we used to be, and you are beyond thrilled about that. But don’t confuse internal improvement with national perspective and standing. We aren’t on that level yet
I would argue that without a winning culture, you can’t win consistently. On the other hand, you can have brief on-court success without a winning culture. I would also say that most good recruits, if they come to our campus and get the full pitch, understand that Michigan has a winning culture and makes its players better. And they can also see that when we’ve finally had the talent on par with the elite (the past couple years), it hasn’t been squandered. Why should that change, especially with coaches apparently so set on not resting on their laurels?
With that said, I think both LA and I can agree that nowhere near as many current highschoolers grew up dreaming of playing Michigan basketball as those dreaming of Duke or Kentucky. But the numbers are growing quickly. A couple years ago, a big MSU fan who posted on another board had a 5th grade son who looked to be a very advanced PG in AAU. This MSU guy said he would have no problem sending his kid to Beilein (assuming they wanted him and the Spartans didn’t come calling). And personally, I don’t think that would change if Michigan only made it to the Round of 32 for the next two years.
I would argue that without a winning culture, you can't win consistently. On the other hand, you can have brief on-court success without a winning culture. I would also say that most good recruits, if they come to our campus and get the full pitch, understand that Michigan has a winning culture and makes its players better. And they can also see that when we've finally had the talent on par with the elite (the past couple years), it hasn't been squandered. Why should that change, especially with coaches apparently so set on not resting on their laurels?
I would counter that by arguing that a “winning” culture is just a subjective word thrown out to describe a situation that one is fond of. A winning culture is subjective at best with no consensus as to what exactly it is. I would also argue that most recruits that come to campus and get the full pitch will understand that get better…offensively</i. I would also argue recruits will understand that they will most likely not improve defensively nor have much utility if their primary attribute is athleticism, or anything non shooting related.
A criticism of myself a few months back was a lack of balance - but I must say that I see little of it in this thread, people are tending to point out the “good” with no mention of the “bad”
No one is saying we’re perfect and you are providing sufficient balance to this thread, IMO. But, in my humble opinion, both Jordan Morgan and Stu Douglass improved defensively, and not so coincidentally, are both players who stayed 4 years. And regarding those whose primary attribute is athleticism, just look at GRIII. Should he have had the ball in his hands more?
I agree that Stu improved on D, but I honestly thought JMo was an above average defender from the time he stepped on the court at UM, he only improved marginally in that regard.
In the case of GR3, my whole point is that everyone applauds JB for his adaptability, I think that is a load of crap…his “system” simply doesn’t utilize athletes in a way that can maximize their potential unless they can shoot and/or handle. We don’t cause TOs on defense so athletes don’t get out in transition, and we don’t utilize the post where athletes can use their physical gifts to simply “out athlete” the defender. JB can make you a star if you have ball skills, but his utilization of athletes leaves a lot to be desired in my view. No way a guy like Sheopard shouldn’t have been better than he was while at UM.
Matt - if your perspective is simply, “Do the current crop of recruits see Michigan as elite, based on their personal history of watching college basketball,?” then the answer is clear: we’re trending upward but still have work to do, and we are not UK, UCLA, UNC, Duke, or Kansas. No question.
What I think you are missing is that historically, this program has cache that you don’t appreciate. College basketball is not reduced to the last 15 years. The 1980s and 1990s are still fresh in the minds of these kids’ parents and AAU coaches. Heck, 10-12 years ago, Webber, Howard and Rose were still standout NBA players.
To see that we are making big strides, look no further than recruiting, where the caliber of player we are recruiting has continued to rise every year, to the point where Chatman, a consensus top 25-30 player, is apparently viewed by you as some type of afterthought recruit. Sure, we need to finish with some of these kids, but when JB took over it would have been a joke for us to try and recruit these type of guys.
No one is arguing JB is perfect, or that there are not areas for team improvement. I have no issue with recruiting more athletic big men (I see no issue with the athleticism - at the college level - of our wings and PGs). One guy I had hoped we would recruit was Jaylen Johnson, but his grades were not in order - not unlike Bolden, who has now failed to qualify for UCLA.
But I will predict right now that Wilson - despite your early predictions to the contrary - is going to bring some nice athleticism to our front court.
Finally, I think this is funny - you argue we are not elite, and can’t recruit at the level of the elite.
Let’s accept that premise as true. Shouldn’t you then appreciate Beilein that much more, since he is competing and winning games as successfully as any coach in the country without the ability to recruit at an elite level?
It seems to me your whole agenda is based on a philosophical disagreement with our approach to basketball - you wish we were a defensive team that recruited athletes, not an offensive team. Really, I think you want us to be MSU or Louisville. And that’s fine, but you don’t have to excessively downplay our success to simply state that position.
LA - I appreciate and personally witnessed UM basketball history in the 80s onwards. Where we differ is how much weight that carries. Quite frankly, in the minds of current recruits it means nothing, and little to their parents unless they are from the local area. Just being blunt here - nobody gives a shit about what UM did in the 80s much the same nobody cares about what SMU did in football in the 80s. It is irrelevant to the current discussion.
The total incompetence of the program for the better part of 20 years is closer in time and fresher on the brain. It is up to the current coaching staff to overcome that stigma and it is there for the taking and we’re halfway there
Finally, I think this is funny - you argue we are not elite, and can't recruit at the level of the elite.
Let’s accept that premise as true. Shouldn’t you then appreciate Beilein that much more, since he is competing and winning games as successfully as any coach in the country without the ability to recruit at an elite level?
It seems to me your whole agenda is based on a philosophical disagreement with our approach to basketball - you wish we were a defensive team that recruited athletes, not an offensive team. Really, I think you want us to be MSU or Louisville. And that’s fine, but you don’t have to excessively downplay our success to simply state that position.
Wrong - I wish we had balance. I view us as the Phoenix Suns of college - win a lot of games, fun to watch at times, but deep down you know they can’t win it all because they simply can’t stop the opposition or win an ugly game.
The games we lost in the last two tournaments we could not stop the opposition. It would have helped if we had a long, 6’9" 4 (like Wilson) or a strong 6’8" 4 who could box out (is Cook that guy?). My point is, I think the coaches understand this and are doing their best to get there while still keeping the elite skill as much as possible.
I agree that Stu improved on D, but I honestly thought JMo was an above average defender from the time he stepped on the court at UM, he only improved marginally in that regard.
In the case of GR3, my whole point is that everyone applauds JB for his adaptability, I think that is a load of crap…his “system” simply doesn’t utilize athletes in a way that can maximize their potential unless they can shoot and/or handle. We don’t cause TOs on defense so athletes don’t get out in transition, and we don’t utilize the post where athletes can use their physical gifts to simply “out athlete” the defender. JB can make you a star if you have ball skills, but his utilization of athletes leaves a lot to be desired in my view. No way a guy like Sheopard shouldn’t have been better than he was while at UM.
Sure Beilein has shortcomings in his coaching. But I find you often overstate the importance of raw athleticism in basketball.
Raw athleticism do not win games by itself. Skills are essential in every sports, even track and fields and Olympic weight lifting. A martial artist can take down much stronger and bigger opponents with his knowledge and skills.
Athletes who are born with higher raw athleticism to jump high and move quickly does not necessarily have high potential than those who are born with better ability to acquire skills, like shooting, dribbling, ability to see the floor, or simply stay out of foul trouble.
And therefore, YES, there is a lot of way for Shepherd not being better than what he was.
The funny thing is I’ve been saying for roughly the past month or so that JB is tweaking his recruiting/philosophy to a more traditional approach because he realized that we need more size/defense in order to take the next step forward - I think he’s smart to go that and it gives me hope we will be in it for the long run.
That apparently went over the heads of a lot if people - you know why - because of perceived reputation…funny how that works