Matt D wrote: “I think the trajectory is the disturbing part for me, as 3 of those kids were in 1 class (2012), with the other 2 spread out over the next 2 years (1 per year)…Great recruiting produced 2 elite years…IMMEDIATELY. As soon as the those guys left, you see the on court production declined severely.”
There’s an objective truth here, in that the perceived initial value of recruits ebbs from year one, albeit from a still-small sample. But–again–having lost six guys last year, for me, means that saying the on court results are suffering is all but meaningless, if not (in fact) a sign of serious over-achievement, at least in individual player development.
I find kn2’s contribution here meaningful, but I also think the divisions between Forum contributors are pretty wide and (now) well established. Some of us admire Beilein’s rather unique approaches to the game and to recruiting, some of us think that he should be plunging into the somewhat dirty game as the dominant coaches are now playing it, and don’t really like the style of play. To a certain extent the conversation gets a little stale beyond that point. Again, it’s hard for me personally not to think that he’s been wildly successful given the parameters he himself establishes (continuing a focus on school, letting the kids evaluate potential teammates, looking for a certain measure of focus in kids and stability).
I am open to the charge that Beilein is not recruiting the inner city or may not connect with a certain kind of working class kid, and would worry about it if I saw real evidence this is the case. But to me the fact that he wants a kid like Brown suggests that he’s not an idiot, would take a one- or two-and-done (for starters). I don’t know about Brown’s financial background, but he seems to tick a lot of the boxes the critics point to. . . while at the same time ticking Beilein’s boxes, too. In fact, it’s guys he’s gone after and not gotten that seem to stick in some posters’ craws, so. . . not like he didn’t want some of these kids you guys also want.
When all is said and done, I am pretty down with Beilein, and can live with neat, innovative teams that over-achieve under the circumstances. A certain kind of overwhelming success on the national stage is, to me, increasingly discredited–viz. the recent success of Duke and KY. (Right now, everyone is patting Coach K on the back because he embraces the dirt–I’ll maintain my moral compass, thank you.) As a proud alum of the UM, I don’t want to be them.