Ahhhhh…my apologies
Yeah, I don’t know how much stock to put into it as I really do think they fit different roles in Beilein’s offense, but I don’t know what the pitch to Dozier is from the standpoint of the coaching staff. Dozier + DT would be drool-inducing to say the least.
Honestly, if you can get Dozier, you take him and worry about DT later. Dozier is that good and a DT commitment is too remote at this point.
Absolutely, both are high caliber players, but you make a push for whichever one you think will commit first, and simply from the 2015 timetable, that would be Dozier. Fingers crossed his UM visit went memorably. Still want a high quality PG option in 2016 regardless though.
And no one cares if you think we lead for DT, you wouldn’t know. My statement comes from everybody who would know, who commented on the matter in the past week. Including UK people.
And no one cares if you think we lead for DT, you wouldn't know. My statement comes from everybody who would know, who commented on the matter in the past week. Including UK people.
Sounds like someone needs a hug.
Wait, no, it cant be the people “who would know” that “commented in the past week”, and certainly not the “UK people” - if they say it, it must be so! LOL
In any event, are we talking about the same people “who would know” that Kam was going to UA, that Coleman was going to UNLV, etc.
Point is the so called insiders rarely know more than you and I so stop getting your panties all bunched up buddy. Just because you pay for information doesn’t necessarily mean its correct
I didn’t pay for anyone to tell me Chatman was going to AZ. Only Point Guard U.com claimed that and maybe 247.
I don’t know what people said on Coleman because I stopped following him after we stopped recruiting him because we landed someone. Perhaps you should have done the same, you were really hurt on that one huh?
Somtimes, just somtimes people have information. I chose to swallow certain pieces. Other I chew and spit out.
The dynamic on top recruits with serious mutual Michigan interest is that just involvement of UK, Duke, etc. triggers the reaction by some that the recruit will likely go elsewhere.
I can only speak for myself when I say that the entire context is considered…direct quotes from interviews, visit activity, “insider” info, our recruiting history (flameouts),etc.
As stated before, I think we’re in the top group, but I don’t think we’re the outright leader. Hopefully I’m wrong.
On the other hand, the contrary dynamic seems true for some that whenever UM has serious mutual interest with a top recruit, said recruit will come to UM, only to later say that recruiting doesn’t matter because we “develop” players.
It’s definitely hard to know what to believe a lot of the time. I generally try to remain optimistic about all our recruits, but at the same time I try to be very discerning with what I believe to be true regarding any particular recruitment. I try to pick up on little nuggets that get thrown out there, people who have had first-hand conversations with the recruit or their family, etc.
With that said, if I had to guess, I’d think that Kentucky going hard after Briscoe is somewhat caused by what they think their chances with Thornton are. But, even if they got Briscoe, I’d guess they’d still recruit Thornton. That’s what they do.
And I believe that if Thornton were deciding today, he’d choose Michigan. But we all know recruitments can take different twists and turns.
As with most recruitments, im sure on court performance this year will influence DT to a certain extent. This is a big portion of my concern for 16 recruiting. While I don’t think we’ll have a bad year, I certainly don’t think we’re heading to another elite 8, and I’d be pleased with another trip to the S16. Anything less than that, and I think recruits may view us as a gimmick that isn’t in the thick of things long term, especially considering our relative lack of star power in the 14 and 15 recruiting cycles.
DT to release top 10 next week, will visit sometime in 15 for OV
Hopefully we can get him and Leaf in for a home game against Wisconsin, MSU, or OSU.
Would have to think home games vs Wisconsin and OSU will be the big draw for recruits - both on weekend.
Seems a little extreme to believe recruits would see our team as “a gimmick.”
First of all, we’ve lost five players to the NBA in two seasons. At some point, you’re going to have to rebuild a little. Teams like MSU, UCLA and Syracuse will be facing that same dilemma this year. Last year, Indiana faced it. Two years ago, it was UNC. I don’t think anyone considers those programs “gimmicks,” do they? It’s pretty difficult to be loaded every single year.
Second, let’s just wait and see how this year unfolds. Last year, everyone automatically assumed we wouldn’t be as successful as the year before. As it turned out, we lost McGary early and still had a great year. I have a feeling this team will turn out to be better than people anticipate. We are currently being ranked in the 20-25 range; I think this is a top 15 or better team by the end of the year.
Finally, we did some of our best recruiting coming off a year where, as a #8 seed in the tourney, we lost to Duke. Following that, we landed Stauskas, McGary, and then Levert and Spike the following spring. So if we do happen to take a big step back this year for some reason, some recruits may see that as an opportunity to step in and contribute immediately, which is likely what Nik and Mitch saw.
The perception that we could be a gimmick in the eyes of recruits is what truly matters, regardless of reality. When you’ve only had 2 successful tourney runs in 20 years you are subject to that stigma whether you like it or not.
What evidence have you seen that recruits may perceive us as a gimmick?
I think the better question given our recent flameouts is what evidence is there to suggest recruits don’t view us as a gimmick?
Gimmick may be a bit strong of a word. I take “gimmick” as, not expected to be a continued power beyond the few good seasons we’ve had recently. That said, I don’t think it’s totally fair to point to our “flameouts” as evidence when they went to what most consider to be more sustained, traditional powers such as Kentucky and Duke. That said, the idea that the perception of Michigan as not on the same level as those types of schools is certainly valid. Not everyone follows Michigan basketball as closely as we fans do. And certainly, if you are just a middle school/high school kid you probably are not watching each and every Michigan game that is on national television. The big names stand out more. I definitely agree that if Michigan can continue to win into March with Beilein at the helm, this potential perception by recruits will change.
Well said Dingo, my whole point was this - schools such as UK, Duke, UNC, Kansas have a presumption for, whereas we have the burden of proving we belong. My definition of gimmick pretty much falls in line with what you said above - and I think it’s fair to say that a good portion of folks don’t expect us to be nationally relevant in the future. I never claimed we’re a gimmick, I simply said that if we have a substandard year that may be how we’re viewed in the eyes of recruits.