GTFO - go watch the UM at IU film from last year. Yogi was blowing by Caris at will. In no way is Caris elite in that department. Walton is better laterally
Ok. I will check it out.
Wilson is above average vertically, average/below average laterally , below average strength, and average speed.
Wilson is above average in every one of those categories for a 6’10" player, including speed and lateral movement. He’s also a far cry from the skinny kid of a year ago. He’s already put on 35 pounds, and Sanderson actually had to hold him back on the trainng so he wouldn’t overdo it.
You guys are just arguing in circles. I think most have agreed that UM isn’t on the level of the truly elite (Kansas, Duke, Kentucky).
History does matter when you are relevant now. If you aren’t good now history doesn’t mean much. But having the history and being a program of UM’s caliber shows that you aren’t an overnight sensation (VCU, George Mason) and that the success has staying power.
Matt you are arguing about how important family is when it comes to Dozier’s recruitment but seem to completely discount the perspective coaches and parents might have on UM from the late 80s and Fab 5. It might mean nothing to recruits since they are too young but the parents and coaches sure still remember that.
Matt, I think that while there is clearly bias in favor of UM, but I think that as a fan it is easy for some people to be hyper-critical which is also a form of bias. I think what you perceive as your objectivity is actually a lot more biased than you believe.
Sorry if this is picking a fight, I really do respect the knowledge you bring, but sometimes I feel you ignore parts that agree with you even when they are the crux of a comment to focus on what you don’t agree with.
I didn’t mean to suggest Wilson is a “wow” athlete if we are throwing pros into the analysis. I meant, as compared to our recent bigs, I think he will have an impressive level of athleticism and demonstrate the ability to block shots.
I think we have reached the level where, as fans, not making the Sweet Sixteen in any given year will be disappointing going forward. As far as intimidation, much of that has to do with style of play. Sure, we are not very physical and no one is “scared” to play us, but I know opposing coaches don’t like scheming against us - see Boeheim’s comments before the FF. And look how badly we embarrassed Donovan and Florida, the top defensive team statistically in the tourney in 2013. I’ll bet he would prefer to face a Tom Izzo offense all day long.
As far as physical intimidation, there aren’t many Patrick Ewing, 1985 Georgetown teams these days anyway. Kids don’t stay long enough to be physically imposing.
Just got caught up on this discussion and a lot of good thoughts and strong opinions. The tide is quickly turning on how Michigan is perceived by current recruits. Obvious evidence is the sheer number of elite recruits who are even considering us. How Michigan is viewed by the national college basketball community is also changing quickly, with one clear data point being how often we are on national television. Personally, I think we are clearly in the group behind Duke, Kentucky, and Kansas and are very quickly moving to the top of that group. Yes, this is an optimistic view. Obviously my view will change if we struggle in recruiting the 2016 class which will lead to lower expectations, etc. But again, I’m choosing to be optimistic.
With regard to my expectations for this season, I think we hover in the 20-30 range most of the year, get something like a 5-8 seed in the tournament and play our best ball by then. We all know that a 5-8 seed means we could be gone before the Sweet 16. If we make the Sweet 16, I will view that as exceeding expectations.
And going back to recruiting, I think the class of '16 knows what we can do with elite talent. They saw it in the '13 tournament. And I also think it’s clear that this coaching staff is more than willing to tweak the roster make-up to shore up some of the deficiencies that team had. And tying it back to historical relevance, a lot of them probably also watched the Fab Five documentary. They have a chance to be The Fab Five: 25th Anniversary Edition, Beilein-style, meaning all the confidence, still the desire to win it all, but more humbleness, more meshing with the upperclassmen, etc.
Very well put GC, your post was both realistic and objective, all while being more diplomatic than i could have been. I agree with the great majority of your thoughts.
Picked 5th in the conference in B10 media poll. Hard to say we’re elite when expectations are to be middle of the pack. Some publications even have us picked 9th. Point is that for every ESPN “top 10 program” there are 2 more that think we’re nowhere near that level.
Well if the B1G media wants to consider Michigan State “elite” to infinity and beyond and we consistently beat them by 3 games in conference, I’ll take it. Not saying that will happen, but if it did, I’d be fine with it.
I don’t agree that MSU is elite this year, in fact I’d go quite the opposite direction. However, my main objective was to say that citing ESPN for the contention that UM is a top 10 program doesn’t mean much, this is the same pubication in which 6 out of 7 writers picked MSU to win the tourney last year. Publication projections/perceptions don’t mean anything if we’re being honest. Let’s look at the wins/losses
I don't agree that MSU is elite this year, in fact I'd go quite the opposite direction. However, my main objective was to say that citing ESPN for the contention that UM is a top 10 program doesn't mean much, this is the same pubication in which 6 out of 7 writers picked MSU to win the tourney last year. Publication projections/perceptions don't mean anything if we're being honest. Let's look at the wins/losses
The difference is that the Top 50 teams in 50 years was very objective. They awarded points based on certain things/accompishments. You can certainly argue the weight that certain accomplishments of a program were given, but you cannot argue that they didn’t apply the same point system to every basketball program. About as objective and unbiased as you can get. And we ranked 13th before the past two years’ success. I have not seen any other similar ranking.
This is completely different than predicting a tournament champion.
Oh, and for all your UM>OSU in the pecking order, OSU is 148-36 overall, 66-24 in B10, 5 tourney appearances, 1 F4, 1 Elite 8, 2 Sweet 16s the last 5 seasons.UM is 119-58 overall, 56-34 in B10, 4 tourney appearances, 1 F4, 1 Elite 8
So yeah, regardless of your opinion, the objective data says OSU>UM, and it gets much uglier if you want to go back 10 years
Who said UM was above OSU over the last 5 years? You are turning into Guestavo. Oh and since you picked the 5 year window, how do we look against Sparty? Its pretty damn close.
Here’s a link to the point system they used. How many points per accomplishment is obviously arbitrary, but it was applied the same to everyone. And also I would argue that media perceptions can influence public perceptions.
The Big Ten writers are a joke - way less informed than national writers when it comes to this type of analysis.
If we’re “being honest,” I think two huge biases come into play with these regional, Big Ten writers: (1) they haven’t liked Michigan since the days of the Fab Five, because that group was seen as cocky and disrespectful to the game, and further due to our longstanding football dominance (of course, not in recent years), they view us arrogant - the same reason Lee Corso can never be objective about Michigan; and (2) most schools in the Big Ten now play a really physical style, and since we don’t, these writers view us skeptically.
I mean, you want to talk bias, ask a Michigan State or Purdue writer to analyze Michigan. And apparently it’s sacreligious to question St. Izzo. His team returns a shell of the talent it had last year, when we beat them by three full games in the Big Ten, and yet they’ll be better than us this year? Do they even have a future NBA player on the roster? If so, who?
Anyway, anything is possible but I think 5th is our floor, and JB usually overachieves, not the opposite. I’ll put us down for 3rd, and a #4 seed in the tourney, which equates to a top 15-20 ranking. Nebraska had a nice year last year and Miles did a nice job, but they’re still a pretender/bubble team to me. And I don’t think MSU is better than us. I’ll go Wisconsin, OSU and then UM, with Indiana as a dark horse to crack the top 3.
Oh, and for all your UM>OSU in the pecking order, OSU is 148-36 overall, 66-24 in B10, 5 tourney appearances, 1 F4, 1 Elite 8, 2 Sweet 16s the last 5 seasons.UM is 119-58 overall, 56-34 in B10, 4 tourney appearances, 1 F4, 1 Elite 8
So yeah, regardless of your opinion, the objective data says OSU>UM, and it gets much uglier if you want to go back 10 years
Who said UM was above OSU over the last 5 years? You are turning into Guestavo. Oh and since you picked the 5 year window, how do we look against Sparty? Its pretty damn close.</blockquote:>
I said it, and it makes sense and here’s why - limiting the discussion to 2 years is certainly not a large enough sample size if we’re going to talk about elite status, that’s a joke.
Furthermore, this was in response to LA who questioned whether OSU belonged higher in the pecking order in relation to UM.
He wanted to go back a full 30-40 years - so here’s my question to you - if you want to nitpick me for 5 years, why not nitpick 30-40…simple answer, narrative building to fit agenda that UM is all things wonderful because of your love for UM…at least in my opinion.
Here's a link to the point system they used. How many points per accomplishment is obviously arbitrary, but it was applied the same to everyone. And also I would argue that media perceptions can influence public perceptions. http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/62654/introducing-the-50-in-50-series
If we take your contention that media perceptions can influence public perceptions, then there is no doubt that UM is not elite. By far, more publications think of UM as a middle of the pack B10 team as opposed to elite based on this year’s projections.
Furthermore, the point system is subjective at best. In what rational award is a program given +5 for a conference title, while only being awarded +2 for a no. 1 seed and vacated seasons are only a -2…seems flawed to me
The Big Ten writers are a joke - way less informed than national writers when it comes to this type of analysis.If we’re “being honest,” I think two huge biases come into play with these regional, Big Ten writers: (1) they haven’t liked Michigan since the days of the Fab Five, because that group was seen as cocky and disrespectful to the game, and further due to our longstanding football dominance (of course, not in recent years), they view us arrogant - the same reason Lee Corso can never be objective about Michigan; and (2) most schools in the Big Ten now play a really physical style, and since we don’t, these writers view us skeptically.
I mean, you want to talk bias, ask a Michigan State or Purdue writer to analyze Michigan. And apparently it’s sacreligious to question St. Izzo. His team returns a shell of the talent it had last year, when we beat them by three full games in the Big Ten, and yet they’ll be better than us this year? Do they even have a future NBA player on the roster? If so, who?
Anyway, anything is possible but I think 5th is our floor, and JB usually overachieves, not the opposite. I’ll put us down for 3rd, and a #4 seed in the tourney, which equates to a top 15-20 ranking. Nebraska had a nice year last year and Miles did a nice job, but they’re still a pretender/bubble team to me. And I don’t think MSU is better than us. I’ll go Wisconsin, OSU and then UM, with Indiana as a dark horse to crack the top 3.
narrative building
MattD - you citing Big Ten writers polls is equal narrative building.
You go back two years, not five or more, because it took Beliein some time to get his program to its optimal level. Matta has been at OSU for a long time and was pulling in premium recruits while Beilein was starting CJ Lee at point guard. Of course comparing 2009, for example, will favor OSU - at that time JB’s first recruiting class - a weak one due to the state of the program when he took over - was only one year into the program, while Matta was pulling five star recruits routinely. Of course Matta will have the advantage up until 2012, when we started landing much better talent.
What’s your problem with measuring it from 2012 forward? We have now reached the point where we have the players we want and need to compete with anyone. We weren’t there before 2012 - no one would credibly claim you can make a deep run in the tourney starting guys like Douglas and Novak. I think the relevant window will be 2012-2017 or so - how do we stack up with elite programs once JB has been able to build up the program and land top 25-100 recruits. And I’ll bet during that time period we’ll be as good as any B10 team.
Here's a link to the point system they used. How many points per accomplishment is obviously arbitrary, but it was applied the same to everyone. And also I would argue that media perceptions can influence public perceptions. http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/62654/introducing-the-50-in-50-seriesIf we take your contention that media perceptions can influence public perceptions, then there is no doubt that UM is not elite. By far, more publications think of UM as a middle of the pack B10 team as opposed to elite based on this year’s projections.
Furthermore, the point system is subjective at best. In what rational award is a program given +5 for a conference title, while only being awarded +2 for a no. 1 seed and vacated seasons are only a -2…seems flawed to me
I was going to say this before, but I will now: no one is saying Michigan is elite. Why do you keep arguing against it? I think we can all agree that we want to be, so what more needs to be said?
Also, one year’s projections/predictions does not an elite program make.
Finally, I said this was the only such ranking I could find and that the points allotted were somewhat arbitrary. If you can find another one or want to offer your own, feel free. And as for your statement “In what rational award is a program given +5 for a conference title, while only being awarded +2 for a no. 1 seed and vacated seasons are only a -2…seems flawed to me”…it doesn’t seem flawed to me.
More narrative building
The problem is that restricting it to the last 2 years is an attempt to turn a cheek to UM’s shitty years, which simply isn’t a fair analysis in the context of elite status. Bottom line is that 2 years isn’t a big enough sample.
Why should OSU/Matta be penalized for UMs shortcomings and JB’s failure to make UM a national contender in a more expedited fashion? Matta inherited a team on probation and immediately made OSU a contender.
So no, we can’t limit the analysis to your ideal world, it has to be fair across the board