Funny that you list Duke and UCONN and both lost. Syracuse was pushed and UNC has lost a ton already.
So list some teams with “defensive stoppers” and let’s see how they do.
Funny that you list Duke and UCONN and both lost. Syracuse was pushed and UNC has lost a ton already.So list some teams with “defensive stoppers” and let’s see how they do.
Arizona has a ton of them. Kansas has a ton of them. Kentucky has a ton of them.
So three? Three teams in the nation have elite defensive stoppers and the rest of the nation is screwed, right?
Give me action on that. You take Kansas, Kentucky, and Arizona and I will take the field. Whoever has more Final Four teams wins.
Also, do you really expect Michigan to recruit on Kentucky/Kansas level? There aren’t many elite high school big men, and the ones there are end up at Blue Blood schools.
On top of that, Kentucky and Kansas have both lost to teams without defensive stoppers this year. You don’t need an elite Big to be good. If I had the choice of an elite big over an average big, obviously I take the elite one, but not having one does not disqualify a team from being “top tier”.
So three? Three teams in the nation have elite defensive stoppers and the rest of the nation is screwed, right?Give me action on that. You take Kansas, Kentucky, and Arizona and I will take the field. Whoever has more Final Four teams wins.
Throw in OSU and Baylor with that and we have a deal?
Simple premise - in basketball you have a very turnover rate on the basis of the one and done rule. Taking that into account, players will be inclined to leave after literally one successful season in college if their potential draft status slots the respective player. Outcome - those programs that can constantly recycle those elite players year in and year out will flourish consistently while those teams that obtain project players will have good/great years sandwiched around mediocre/below average years because when the few elite players on the roster leave, they are replaced by players that are either not as talented, or need 2-3 years to be as talented.
In simple terms, until the one and done rule is changed, recruiting elite players is the best way of establishing a legitimate national title contender on a yearly basis. If you recruit on an elite level then your talent base is consistent and you don’t experience those down years that allow you to decline in the eyes of future recruits.
But we are never going to recruit on Duke/Kansas/Kentucky level, so we can’t expect to land elite bigs at a higher rate than them One elite big every recruiting cycle (3-4 years) is extremely good for a program like Michigan. Other schools aren’t even doing that.
Meanwhile, we are still recruiting elite wings and guards.
So three? Three teams in the nation have elite defensive stoppers and the rest of the nation is screwed, right?Give me action on that. You take Kansas, Kentucky, and Arizona and I will take the field. Whoever has more Final Four teams wins.
Throw in OSU and Baylor with that and we have a deal?
Ohio St.? Sure, deal.
You get Kansas, Kentucky, Arizona, Ohio St., and Baylor. I get the field.
But we are never going to recruit on Duke/Kansas/Kentucky level, so we can't expect to land elite bigs at a higher rate than them One elite big every recruiting cycle (3-4 years) is extremely good for a program like Michigan. Other schools aren't even doing that.Meanwhile, we are still recruiting elite wings and guards.
See, once again you are being hypocritical. In one breath you say we are never going to recruit on a Duke/KU/UK level so we can’t expect elite bigs at a higher rate than those respective programs, but in another breath you say we do get elite perimeter players.
If you can land elite perimeter players there is no excuse for not being able to land elite big men that can protect the paint and alter shots. The truth is that elite bigs with more a more traditional, post oriented game on both offense and defense are probably not inclined to gravitate toward Michigan because quite frankly, we simply don’t feed the post, we’re a perimeter oriented team. Whether that’s a product of JB not having the players to warrant feeding the post, or his preference of filling the roster with players that can shoot is still out to the jury. I tend to gravitate toward the latter. We did feed the post with Sims, and JB did get Mcgary, but overall I simply think JB prefers all his players be able to shoot and emphasizes perimeter play over post play on both ends.
That being said It is pretty obvious that there is a pretty big discrepancy between our current talent level on the perimeter vs the post, and we need more balance. Obviously we’re not a good defensive/rebounding team either, so we need to address that as well. I think we would all be lying to ourselves if we think Donnal/Doyle/Wilson are going to improve defense and rebounding in the future. Chatman may help in that area, and hopefully he does - not so much defense but rebounding. Let’s face it, for the most part guys like Zimmerman and Stone aren’t going to come here because they know they’re probably not going to be featured in the offense(whether that’s true or not) because that is the perception of Michigan basketball. Why not go after guys like a Jaylen Johnson that will help improve defense/rebounding/alter shots. A player like that may not shoot a high clip from 3 but he will help you win games by doing the dirty work, and we need that bad. And truthfully the guy was a great passer for a big, probably would’ve been very effective for us int the high post. I’d like us to pursue those type of players more frequently to bring balance to the roster.
No one in the B1G has an “elite stopper.” No, I do not consider Williams an "elite stopper.
Certainly, no one else I’ve seen qualifies. Arizona has a lot of size and athleticism, yet we came within a hair of beating them with a McGary who was not close to 100 per cent. I’m not sure who Kansas’ elite stopper is this season. Wiggins? Not hardly. And UK? Are people referring to Cauley-Stein? Randall? I would not call either one an “elite” stopper.
Matt, Duke/Kentucky/Kansas can recruit elite positions 1 through 5. Michigan doesn’t have that luxury. There are maybe 5 elite bigs in each class compared to 15 elite wings.
Do you really think JB should be recruiting on the level of a Kentucky or Duke? That’s what it sounds like.
And Matt, you sound disgustingly similar to the “fire Beilein” guys that were lurking around forums a couple years ago. You hate his system, you hate the players he brings in, and you hate how he coaches. Something says “agenda”.
Matt, Duke/Kentucky/Kansas can recruit elite positions 1 through 5. Michigan doesn't have that luxury. There are maybe 5 elite bigs in each class compared to 15 elite wings.Do you really think JB should be recruiting on the level of a Kentucky or
Duke? That’s what it sounds like.
Why don’t we have that “luxury”? Doesn’t have to be an elite 2 way big, just has to be a good defensive oriented big.
And yes, if we want to consistently compete for national titles, I really think we should be recruiting on a UK/Duke level. That’s not what it sounds like, that’s what it is.
You have low expectations, I don’t, I feel we SHOULD be an elite program. If we’re coming fresh off a natl champ appearance we SHOULD be shooting for the stars on the court and on the recruiting trail. So ill ask ask you, since JB is such a great coach why are your expectations so low?
If you honestly think Michigan (or any Big Ten school) can consistently recruit on par with Kentucky and Duke, then you know less about college basketball than I thought.
Also, we get it. You like defense. That doesn’t change the fact that you don’t need an elite, “defense oriented” big to have a great team.
Stop making excuses, the question still stands, why are your expectations so low?
There is a difference between realistic expectations and low expectations. Duke and Kentucky are two of the best programs in college basketball history. Kids grow up wanting to play at Duke and Kentucky. Duke and Kentucky handpick their recruits each year. Michigan is not Duke or Kentucky. Heck, I’d love if they were, but they aren’t.
Exactly the answer I thought you offer.
Question - do you think Bill Foster/Coach K had “realistic expectations” when he took over a Duke program that was an absolute joke?
Basically what you’re saying is it is sufficient to be above average and have a great year once in a while. I reject that notion. That’s called settling in my book. If the coaching is that great then you strive and expect a legit national contender on a consistent basis and nothing less
Beilein is a good coach that is coaching at a good program. Coach K is arguably the greatest NCAA coach of all time that turned Duke into one of the best college basketball programs in the country.
You can expect Beilein to put up Coach K/Duke results if you’d like, but nobody that has a lick of common sense would expect that on a year-in-year-out basis.
Again, I thought you would offer that answer.
Thad Matta took OSU from from horrible to great literally within 2-3 years. They are now a consistent powerhouse and are always expected to compete for a national title. OSU recruiting is great. Can we not expect to be on par with OSU on the court and on the recruiting trail?
At some point your excuses have to cease, and reality needs to kick in. If you intend to be a great program you need great players, plain and simple. And, if the coaching/recruiting is that good, then you’ll eventually see the recruiting profile and on court product reflect that.
We are already recruiting and performing on Ohio St.'s level. I expect Michigan to be on par with Ohio St. I don’t expect Michigan to be on par with Duke and Kentucky.