No, the difference is (a) I never said everyone else cheats, but I am saying we’ve earned our moral indignation against programs that do cheat, which is a crucial distinction, and (b) I certainly didn’t whine about attrition (nor say nobody else has it).
For the record, I think MSU is as clean as anyone else. Wisconsin. Wichita. Butler (I’m just naming other recent Final Four teams off the top of my head). But there’s specific and serious smoke around Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, Arizona, UConn, Syracuse, Ohio State, UCLA, North Carolina, and plenty of others. Given the small nuggets of insight I do have personally, I’m inclined to believe most of it.
And, look, I am even in the camp of people that believes that players should be able to earn compensation in some reasonable way. But for as long as the rules are the rules, and Michigan is willing to follow rules, I want others to have to play on a level playing field.
If our contention here boils down to, you’d rather Michigan plays by the same rules as others, then I can agree to disagree. I’m just saying that the deck is in fact stacked. But not uniquely for Michigan and nobody else, that’s crazy talk.
Also…we didn’t suck for a decade because of our self-imposed punishments, a meaningful percentage of that was hiring the wrong coach.
I mean, if Michigan fell on the sword and others don't, then doesn't that mean they *are* "above the fray"? It might not have been "smart" but I do think it allows for the moral high ground. Perhaps I don't understand your contention about arrogance.
I also disagree with the last sentiment. We obviously could have won a national title and will be in position to do that again. How else are we not able to be in the upper cusp? Clearly I think the deck is stacked against us, but that doesn’t mean we still can’t do it (and then feel great about how we did it).
Or you could say those other schools protect their players and coaches vociferously and will go to the mat for them. Michigan didn’t and won’t do that for their players it goes back to guys like Crawford and even Horton. Michigan ignores their history with the likes of the Fab 5 and would rather act like those things never happened.
Well missing the tournament after making the finals 2 years ago certainly doesn’t help the pursuit of being in the upper cusp. I am not that confident of the program getting in that position again either. I think we were spoiled with those 1-2 years and people don’t recognize how talented those teams were. Currently the talent isn’t there.
Michigan won’t protect players or coaches vociferously who they feel let them down by breaking rules they shouldn’t have broken. Perhaps you recall the AD standing up for Rich Rod around Stretchgate.
Frankly, I don’t know what we did or did not do behind the scenes re: Crawford. And re: Horton, are you referring to his domestic violence suspension? I don’t think that’s something the university or AD is going to protect a player for.
So you think a small display case is fitting? It’s a start but has Webber been to Crisler Centre or their practice facility? This isn’t the right thread but obviously we disagree on many things. When Michigan built their 20 million dollar facility and put money into Crisler things should have changed because they joined the arms race. We still aren’t getting that bump in recruiting after the title game or recent success though. In order to be a player every year in the tournament things need to change.
I didn’t say it’s fitting, just that it clearly means they are not trying to deny the existence. Maybe I’m just being too semantical with the hyperbole in your and kerhodan’s comments. As with most things, the truth is in the gray area in between.
I’d love to see Chris and the university reconcile. I think a lot of that is on Chris. Hopefully Jim Hackett can help heal those wounds, like he did with (a much much smaller issue with) Jim Harbaugh.
Chalk one up to a flat out better coach who also has a core of elite level talent on his team.
The way Bo Ryan exploited Calipari’s decision to go small at the start of the 2h was beautiful.
UK’s 2 shot clock violations in crunch time are a direct reflection of poor coaching. You can’t just roll the ball out there and expect to win these games when the other team is as talented as Wisconsin and as well coached.
The decision to have Booker on the floor was absolute stupidity. Kaminsky only scored 2-3 baskets on nonBooker players. Booker was repeatedly abused by both Dekker and Kaminsky. The 1-4 offensive sets during the final 4 mins to Harrison was stupidity as well considering he’s just above average and the biggest mismatch was clearly Towns against anyone and Lyles to a lesser extent
Bad coaching certainly played a part, but let’s not pretend as if the whistle didn’t benefit Wisconsin in crucial moments when it shouldn’t have. The Hayes putback after the shot clock clearly expired and the subsequent foul on Harrison when he was clearly vertical with no body contact were huge miscalls. That being said, I thought Wisconsin was in control the majority of the game and probably deserved to win.
Chalk one up to a flat out better coach who also has a core of elite level talent on his team.
The way Bo Ryan exploited Calipari’s decision to go small at the start of the 2h was beautiful.
UK’s 2 shot clock violations in crunch time are a direct reflection of poor coaching. You can’t just roll the ball out there and expect to win these games when the other team is as talented as Wisconsin and as well coached.
Completely agree on Ryan out coaching Calapari.
Regarding elite talent, sans Dekker and maybe Nigel Hayes, the rest of their team is comprised of guys that most elite programs didn’t want. Kentucky had five times the elite talent but still got punked. So my point was - coaching and player development matter. Some on here will not stop talking about how important it is to get the best of the best coming out of high school. There are other ways to get it done.
Certainly other ways to get it done, the question is can the ‘development’ route consistently win championships in relation to obtaining elite talent cycle after cycle?
In other words, what’s the more efficient way? Banking on guys that could Be above average 3 years later or getting guys that will produce from day 1. Seems rather easy to me
Chalk one up to a flat out better coach who also has a core of elite level talent on his team.
The way Bo Ryan exploited Calipari’s decision to go small at the start of the 2h was beautiful.
UK’s 2 shot clock violations in crunch time are a direct reflection of poor coaching. You can’t just roll the ball out there and expect to win these games when the other team is as talented as Wisconsin and as well coached.
Completely agree on Ryan out coaching Calapari.
Regarding elite talent, sans Dekker and maybe Nigel Hayes, the rest of their team is comprised of guys that most elite programs didn’t want. Kentucky had five times the elite talent but still got punked. So my point was - coaching and player development matter. Some on here will not stop talking about how important it is to get the best of the best coming out of high school. There are other ways to get it done.
Koenig picked Wisconsin over UNC and Duke. Dekker could have went anywhere he wanted but the kid would have probably given up an organ to play in Wisconsin. The best coaches have a core of elite talent on their team surrounded by players you have developed over a couple of years.
There are always other ways to get just about everything done. The best way IMO is having a quality coach who can both land elite talent and develop players around them.
Michigan’s last final 4 run and JB’s only final 4 appearance was on the back of a kid that did this: McGary joined Blake Griffin (2009) as the only two players in the last 15 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Tournaments to achieve 14 or more rebounds and 21 or more points in back-to-back games.
JB didn’t coach that. That’s raw ability that made a good team great.
At the end of the day people can holler the development garbage all day and night, raw talent and athleticism is the most crucial element to winning at any level in any sport.
If the only measure that matters is winning The National Championship, then Calipari’s way is not consistently winning championships either. 1 for 6 by my count.
If the only measure that matters is winning The National Championship, then Calipari's way is not consistently winning championships either. 1 for 6 by my count.
1 more than JB by my count. Point is you win with talent above anything else.
Yep he’s got one, JB’s got none. But by your own standards I don’t think the 1 for 6 backs up your assertion that talent wins above anything else. 1 for 6 doesn’t seem like consistency.
Yep he's got one, JB's got none. But by your own standards I don't think the 1 for 6 backs up your assertion that talent wins above anything else. 1 for 6 doesn't seem like consistency.
I guess we will revisit on Monday night, but if Duke wins then it will just lend further support to the fact that talent wins out. Elite, sure fire, one and dones/upper tier players are simply the easiest path to winning on a consistent basis. Duke just dismantled a team full of ‘developed’ upperclassmen in MSU. Didn’t even look like they belonged on the same court for the final 36 minutes of the game. Im sorry, but elite talent is simply preferable to a feel good story in my opinion.
Yep he's got one, JB's got none. But by your own standards I don't think the 1 for 6 backs up your assertion that talent wins above anything else. 1 for 6 doesn't seem like consistency.
I guess we will revisit on Monday night, but if Duke wins then it will just lend further support to the fact that talent wins out. Elite, sure fire, one and dones/upper tier players are simply the easiest path to winning on a consistent basis. Duke just dismantled a team full of ‘developed’ upperclassmen in MSU. Didn’t even look like they belonged on the same court for the final 36 minutes of the game. Im sorry, but elite talent is simply preferable to a feel good story in my opinion.
How many one-and-dones were on 2014 UConn? Or 2013 Louisville? I’ll give you 2012 UK. But what about 2011 UConn? Or 2010 Duke? Or 2009 UNC? None. None of those teams had any one-and-dones. And all of them had a solid core of upperclassmen.
Chalk one up to a flat out better coach who also has a core of elite level talent on his team.
The way Bo Ryan exploited Calipari’s decision to go small at the start of the 2h was beautiful.
UK’s 2 shot clock violations in crunch time are a direct reflection of poor coaching. You can’t just roll the ball out there and expect to win these games when the other team is as talented as Wisconsin and as well coached.
Completely agree on Ryan out coaching Calapari.
Regarding elite talent, sans Dekker and maybe Nigel Hayes, the rest of their team is comprised of guys that most elite programs didn’t want. Kentucky had five times the elite talent but still got punked. So my point was - coaching and player development matter. Some on here will not stop talking about how important it is to get the best of the best coming out of high school. There are other ways to get it done.
Koenig picked Wisconsin over UNC and Duke. Dekker could have went anywhere he wanted but the kid would have probably given up an organ to play in Wisconsin. The best coaches have a core of elite talent on their team surrounded by players you have developed over a couple of years.
There are always other ways to get just about everything done. The best way IMO is having a quality coach who can both land elite talent and develop players around them.
Michigan’s last final 4 run and JB’s only final 4 appearance was on the back of a kid that did this: McGary joined Blake Griffin (2009) as the only two players in the last 15 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Tournaments to achieve 14 or more rebounds and 21 or more points in back-to-back games.
JB didn’t coach that. That’s raw ability that made a good team great.
Yep - and one year later they were a crazy shot away from making another Final 4 with Jordan Morgan playing elite basketball without the ability to play our elite recruit McGary. Nobody wanted Morgan coming out of high school. Yet some how magically he played like he did at the end of his career. McGary was special in the 2013 tourney no doubt. But let’s not act like elite recruiting is the only way to go. I’m done here - you guys can have the last word - waste of my time trying to enlighten you.
I just want a sprinkle of Elite Talent for JB to coach. One or two players is all JB needs because he is a good coach.
I think a team of one or two elite players surrounded by developed role players, with a good coach will win their fair share against a team compromised of mostly elite talent and an underwhelming coach.
Unfortunately, we have a team of one or two above average players who are surrounded by under developed projects with no light at the end of the tunnel until these kids are juniors and seniors.
Chalk one up to a flat out better coach who also has a core of elite level talent on his team.
The way Bo Ryan exploited Calipari’s decision to go small at the start of the 2h was beautiful.
UK’s 2 shot clock violations in crunch time are a direct reflection of poor coaching. You can’t just roll the ball out there and expect to win these games when the other team is as talented as Wisconsin and as well coached.
Completely agree on Ryan out coaching Calapari.
Regarding elite talent, sans Dekker and maybe Nigel Hayes, the rest of their team is comprised of guys that most elite programs didn’t want. Kentucky had five times the elite talent but still got punked. So my point was - coaching and player development matter. Some on here will not stop talking about how important it is to get the best of the best coming out of high school. There are other ways to get it done.
Koenig picked Wisconsin over UNC and Duke. Dekker could have went anywhere he wanted but the kid would have probably given up an organ to play in Wisconsin. The best coaches have a core of elite talent on their team surrounded by players you have developed over a couple of years.
There are always other ways to get just about everything done. The best way IMO is having a quality coach who can both land elite talent and develop players around them.
Michigan’s last final 4 run and JB’s only final 4 appearance was on the back of a kid that did this: McGary joined Blake Griffin (2009) as the only two players in the last 15 NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball Tournaments to achieve 14 or more rebounds and 21 or more points in back-to-back games.
JB didn’t coach that. That’s raw ability that made a good team great.
Yep - and one year later they were a crazy shot away from making another Final 4 with Jordan Morgan playing elite basketball without the ability to play our elite recruit McGary. Nobody wanted Morgan coming out of high school. Yet some how magically he played like he did at the end of his career. McGary was special in the 2013 tourney no doubt. But let’s not act like elite recruiting is the only way to go. I’m done here - you guys can have the last word - waste of my time trying to enlighten you.
I just want a sprinkle of Elite Talent for JB to coach. One or two players is all JB needs because he is a good coach.
I think a team of one or two elite players surrounded by developed role players, with a good coach will win their fair share against a team compromised of mostly elite talent and an underwhelming coach.
Couldn’t have said it better. We need 1 upper tier, multifaceted player per year in order to compete at an elite level every year. Need to be able to have guys step in an contribute immediately because attrition is a fact of life - one good year and guys leave. We don’t need 5 guys a year like UK, but we need to have 2-3 guys on the roster that you can just give em the ball at the end of close games, get the hell out of their way, and they will get you a bucket.