A look at Beilein's recruiting from 2012-2016

I don't think I'm really getting across what I'm trying to say.

You can be a great recruiter and a bad developer.

You can be a great developer and a bad recruiter. But if you are a bad recruiter it’s irrelevant because you will have no one to develop. I think the development the players have had under JB shows he is at least a more than adequate recruiter because he has had guys with the potential to be developed.

I don’t by any means think he is a great recruiter, I just think we undersell it a little here because of some high profile misses and just the general desire to get all the best players.

I agree that we get decent/above avearge players…but along with decent player, you most likely will have a team with a decent/above average ceiling. If you want an elite ceiling, I think you need elite players if that makes sense.

makes sense

"Mattski - be reminded that Jaylen Brown had to contact JB, not the other way around. "

And I suppose that could be a reason why we don’t land him. A certain kind of slavish pursuit of the big stars has become the norm, and Beilein is not up for that. But I was encouraged by Brown’s own common sense assertion that he wasn’t looking for that. . . that kid, in fact, impressed the heck out of me.

You spend time recruting kids you believe you can land. Jaylen Brown does not fit the profile - a five star kid from the South. When is the last time we successfully landed a kid like that? Jimmy King? No one knew he had connections to the state of Michigan, including Tom Izzo who also didn’t recruit him.

You spend time recruting kids you believe you can land. Jaylen Brown does not fit the profile - a five star kid from the South. When is the last time we successfully landed a kid like that? Jimmy King? No one knew he had connections to the state of Michigan, including Tom Izzo who also didn't recruit him.

If that’s the case why recruit Josh Langford?

I don't think I'm really getting across what I'm trying to say.

You can be a great recruiter and a bad developer.

You can be a great developer and a bad recruiter. But if you are a bad recruiter it’s irrelevant because you will have no one to develop. I think the development the players have had under JB shows he is at least a more than adequate recruiter because he has had guys with the potential to be developed.

I don’t by any means think he is a great recruiter, I just think we undersell it a little here because of some high profile misses and just the general desire to get all the best players.

I agree that we get decent/above avearge players…but along with decent player, you most likely will have a team with a decent/above average ceiling. If you want an elite ceiling, I think you need elite players if that makes sense.

Building a team with elite, instant-impact players is much easier said than done. Only a very small handful of programs have the ability to replenish elite one-and-dones or two-and-dones on a yearly basis. Michigan, at least under JB, is not going to be one of those teams.

And while that may be the most sure-fire way to remain elite year-in and year-out, it’s not the only way. Consistently recruiting players in the 40-120 range and having them log major minutes when they are ready–not immediately out of necessity–is another way to remain a top-15 type program. As LAWolverine alluded to, ND, Iowa State, Villanova, Gonzaga, Wisconsin, UVa, etc. follow this model because they don’t have the ability to consistently bring in elite talent.

Some might disagree, but I think a team with seniors Walton and Irvin, Juniors MAAR, Dawkins, Doyle, Chatman, Wilson, Donnal, and Robinson, and Sophomore Wagner would be top 15 type team. We would need a solid 2016 class to remain a good team after that. But Teske, plus a top-50 PG and top-60 wing would be a good start.

The Hoke example is interesting. I think that shows if you consistently get the top guys that other programs are after and then do absolutely nothing with them. It seems to me when that happens consistently it’s not really that you are missing something in the recruiting but that you just can’t develop guys.
On the flip side if you consistently find underrated guys and develop them you are probably catching something in these guys during recruiting that others are missing. Being able to develop players can only take you so far, you can only develop players that have the ability to be developed (not everybody can become Nik through training, clearly there was unrecognized talent there that development brought out). Therefore it shows that you are doing something right in recruiting.
It may sound like I’m being contradictory, but it makes sense in my head.

I think everybody is heightened sensitivity to recruiting because 2014-15 was such a down year. But one could argue it was more due to injuries and players leaving sooner than expected (esp Nik) than recruiting failures.

If M contends for the B1G next year, I’m guessing this will be a moot point.

However, if Maryland & IU w/ their recruiting wins go on to win the league, then people will still be looking from M to land an elite ranked recruit.

The Hoke example is interesting. I think that shows if you consistently get the top guys that other programs are after and then do absolutely nothing with them. It seems to me when that happens consistently it's not really that you are missing something in the recruiting but that you just can't develop guys. On the flip side if you consistently find underrated guys and develop them you are probably catching something in these guys during recruiting that others are missing. Being able to develop players can only take you so far, you can only develop players that have the ability to be developed (not everybody can become Nik through training, clearly there was unrecognized talent there that development brought out). Therefore it shows that you are doing something right in recruiting. It may sound like I'm being contradictory, but it makes sense in my head.

It’s not just a question of development, its a question of whether the coaches are placing the players in positions to succeed. For instance, Denard Robinson was a pretty highly touted recruit out of HS…does the fact that he regressed under Hoke translate to him being overrated, despite the fact that he was literally a record setting QB and probably the best (or among the top 5 at least) player in college football as a sophmore?

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.

IMO We emptied our clip really fast and ran out of ammo. Our supply hasn’t been quite the firepower we need to sustain the same level of success.

We didn’t have enough projects from previous classes that panned out or stuck around.

2013-2014: 1 senior, Horford
2014-2015: 1 senior, Bielfeldt
2015-2016: 1 senior, Spike (if Levert goes pro)

Where’s our Craft, Yogi, Gasser, Jackson, Sam Thompson, Dawson, Trice, Valentine, etc?
I think Walton/Irvin will be those guys for us

But to me, that’s been the disappointing thing…yeah we missed on the instant impact guys but we weren’t ready. We have 13 scholarships. We don’t need ALL to be instant impact guys.

I think Beilein has changed his philosophy. I don’t think anyone can deny that much.
He just needs to get his in 2016 and we’ll be fine.

I think you have to judge recruiting to an extent on how the player turned out. It's pretty clear recruiting rankings are not perfect so why judge a coach based on those?

I agree (and explicitly stated so above) that a determination of recruiting success based on rankings is senseless, since the sites are wrong a fair protion of the time (although I will say that if you look at the correlation between top 100 players and National Championship teams, its pretty obvious there is some merit for that argument). I think the better question is this - is the recruit the type of player that is multifaceted/upper tier, come in and be an impact contributor for your team within the first few years. If not, that suggests that it might not be the recruiting/identification that is good, but rather the development. They are disntictive in my opinion. For instance, was Hoke not a good recruiter because his players seemingly never improved?

i've tried to point this out before. I think we overstate recruiting problems in this forum on some high profile misses. He's obviously not recruiting at the level of Duke/UK/UA but he has had some solid classes, none of which have been total misses, except for maybe 2015.

Just think it depends on expectation level…if you take a retrospective approach and define recruiting success as whether the guy develops into a decent player after his career is done (which could be 4 years), then you may reach very different results in relation to someone who defines recruiting success as how good did the recruit perform on an immediate basis (in other words was he a decent player within the first 2 years)? Translation, there is a distinction between recruiting and development. Being able to develop a guy (assuming he turns out to be a decent, or even good player), is very different than being a quality recruiter.

i've tried to point this out before. I think we overstate recruiting problems in this forum on some high profile misses. He's obviously not recruiting at the level of Duke/UK/UA but he has had some solid classes, none of which have been total misses, except for maybe 2015.

Just think it depends on expectation level…if you take a retrospective approach and define recruiting success as whether the guy develops into a decent player after his career is done (which could be 4 years), then you may reach very different results in relation to someone who defines recruiting success as how good did the recruit perform on an immediate basis (in other words was he a decent player within the first 2 years)? Translation, there is a distinction between recruiting and development. Being able to develop a guy (assuming he turns out to be a decent, or even good player), is very different than being a quality recruiter.

I agree to an extent. But it’s seems a large part of JB’s MO is to recruit guys that he can develop. So a recruit turning out to be a good player over his time at UM goes back to the identification of the ability to develop while recruiting.
I do agree with stuff you have posted that it would be nice ti get all those instant impact guys. But I think you can look at how a player develops and retroactively decide whether he was a good recruit or not based upon the fact that the ability to develop over his college career seems to be a big piece of criteria in JB’s player assessment. (sorry a little rambling but I’m just trying to get my thoughts down)

Jaker - that’s pretty much where I disagree, just because a player turns out nicely doesn’t necessarily mean he was a good recruit, but in some cases it does. For instance, I think Trey Burke was a really good recruit, just underrated. On the opposite end, I don’t think DJ Wilson was a really good recruit (even though some sites had him ranked higher than Burke), just overrated by some sites. DJ may turn out to be a really good player, but was he a really good recruit is the question? That’s how recruiting should be guaged in my opinion.

I think you have to judge recruiting to an extent on how the player turned out. It’s pretty clear recruiting rankings are not perfect so why judge a coach based on those?

i’ve tried to point this out before. I think we overstate recruiting problems in this forum on some high profile misses. He’s obviously not recruiting at the level of Duke/UK/UA but he has had some solid classes, none of which have been total misses, except for maybe 2015.

My sticking point is utilizing Rivals. I did a pretty thorough review of Rivals ratings as it relates to ESPN and Scout in connection with UM recruits…the response was pretty unanimous that ESPN and Scout were on relative equal footing, with Rivals lacking behind.

More than that though, forget about the rankings, let’s just really ask ourselves…of the guys listed above, how many were upper tier/multifaceted players/instant impact in HS (not talking about development since the OP limited it to recruiting)? If that is the criteria, I agree that Mitch, GR3, Nik, Walton, and Chatman were those type of guys. Other than than you are talking about guys that were no doubt project types. 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. Too early too say causation, but there is certainly a correlation.

I think JB does a great job of finding kids that will be contributors and decent role players whereas other coaches don’t see those same qualities…but it seems that his ability to land difference maker types/primary options is where he may be lacking. If he is able to rectify that, we will be an elite team. If not, we will be an above average team most years, with the occasional deep tourney run when the projects work out, and are all juniors/seniors.