Michigan 95, Iowa 67 Comment Count

Ace


Bryan Fuller/MGoBlog

For the first 13 minutes against Iowa, Michigan looked as disjointed and inconsistent on both ends of the floor as they had all season. The Hawkeyes, coming off a four-point loss to Indiana, looked poised to give another top-flight team a serious test, holding a 21-17 edge with seven minutes left in the first half.

Over the course of the next 27 minutes, the Wolverines scored 78 points.

The onslaught actually began on defense, when Mitch McGary electrified the Crisler crowd with a volleyball spike of a block against Iowa's Aaron White—a display of sheer athletic superiority. From that point, Michigan finished the first half on a 27-14 tear featuring three thunderous dunks—one each by Glenn Robinson III, Mitch McGary, and Tim Hardaway Jr., whose one-handed throwdown will assuredly crack the Sportscenter top ten.

In the waning seconds of the half, the Wolverines somehow moved the ball coast-to-coast in under four seconds, capped by a Robinson layup that sent the team running into the tunnel with an 11-point lead.

Iowa had made their upset bid. There would be no upset.

The acrobatics continued in the second half as the Wolverines pulled away; in all, Michigan totaled 11 dunks by five different players. They also connected on 10-of-22 three-pointers. Of their 36 field goals, 24 were assisted. They committed six turnovers.

Robinson, perhaps more representative than any other Wolverine of the new breed, led the charge with 20 points on 8-of-13 shooting and ten rebounds. After the game, he revealed one of his nicknames, "Light Rob," for his ability to register so-called quiet points within the framework of the offense. His points weren't so quiet today—five dunks tend to make some noise—but he once again displayed a knack for showing up in the right spot, rarely needing to do so much as dribble to put the ball in the hoop.

Trey Burke did what Trey Burke does: 19 points on 7-of-10 shooting, 12 assists, a steal, and a lone turnover. Michigan's other star, Hardaway, also managed 19 points, hitting 3-of-5 threes and stuffing the stat sheet with five rebounds and five assists. Nik Stauskas, working around the margins, scored 13 and threw down a slam of his own, using his lethal three-point shot to set up the drive.

Then there was McGary, doing the grunt work in his best game as a Wolverine. He finished with five points, hitting his only two field goals of the day; more importantly, he hit the glass, bringing in 11 rebounds in just 20 minutes and keying the fast break with quick outlet passes. Continuing to show more explosiveness after starting the year rusty, McGary tallied three blocks and, yes, dunked.

Despite a margin that hung in the neighborhood of 30 points for much of the second half, Crisler didn't begin to empty until the last couple minutes, after the starters had all been (mercifully) pulled. This was a show, the divine intersection of athleticism and skill, and woe be upon the fan who didn't savor every second.

Asked to compare this team to the others he's coached, John Beilein said, "we run a little faster and jump a little higher." In a grand concession given his previous, tongue-in-cheek dodging of such questions, Beilein even went so far as to say "a few" of his past players may even admit this Michigan outfit is superior to his past squads.

Indeed, Coach. Indeed.

Comments

StephenRKass

January 6th, 2013 at 11:19 PM ^

As I said yesterday, I've drunk the koolaid. Short of injury, I don't think anything can or will stop Michigan. I agree with those who see McGary continuing to improve. LeVert continues to get better. Stauskas will get better. Burke, Hardaway, and Robinson are already performing at an extremely high level. It is just sick to have four guys who can easily score 20 any night. With that kind of performance, no one has to take the weight of the team on their shoulders. Morgan occasionally will get a double - double, but once McGary is running on all cylinders, who is going to stop us? More than that, I still have very high hopes for Horford.

I'm now at the point where I can't see more than 2 or 3 losses all season long.

About my only regret is that I could easily see 3 guys go to the NBA after the season is done. But if that's the price to pay for success, it's a price worth paying.

 

Shop Smart Sho…

January 7th, 2013 at 1:47 AM ^

I really don't think GRIII leaves.  I would like to think that his dad is either smart enough, or has smart enough friends, to tell the kid he doesn't need to go because the education is more important.

 

I can even see Hardaway staying another year if he is rated at the bottom of the first round. At that stage, staying for the degree and another run with a super-talented team should only increase his draft spot.

Buck Killer

January 7th, 2013 at 8:30 AM ^

Education over permanent retirement? That is a joke and is selfish. He can finish his degree after making 100 million dollars, or finish while playing ball. I completed my degree while working full time. He can complete his playing a game.

kyeblue

January 7th, 2013 at 9:55 AM ^

he is very ready, and besides he may have a lot credits already and he can always come back to finish some time later. Juwan Howard was able to finish with his class despite leaving after three years.  

GRIII is not ready yet, still boyish, will celebrate his 19th birthday tomorrow, and I am sure that he is not in a rush either. His father stayed for three years in Purdue and Tre should get time to enjoy college as well. He could be a much more dominate players in two years.  

 

Needs

January 7th, 2013 at 10:23 AM ^

Big Dog's college career was a different era in two ways. 1. It was far more common for star players to stay 3 years (and I think in MJ's era, players could only come out after 3 years in college, but I may be wrong). He was drafted one year before Garnett came out as a high schooler and NBA teams began to change the way they drafted. 2. That was also an era when rookies could get huge contracts (relative to the rest of the NBA). Now with the rookie wage scale which limits initial contracts, the new emphasis is on getting to a second, potentially max deal, contract, and also setting up the potential for a third contract.* 

In other words, if you come out @ 20, there's a much greater chance of getting a large contract at 25 and a second large contract @ 30 vs. coming out at 22 and getting the second contract at 27, there's less of a chance that teams will make the same investment in a 32 year old player. 

All this, of course, requires being drafted in the first round and being a developed enough to begin contributing in major ways during the second year so teams begin planning to invest long-term. He might come back next year to develop as a primary scorer/ to show what he can do on a team where he's not the 3rd/4th scoring option (though there's a risk there, too). I'm also not sure what kind of relationship GRIII has with his dad, and how much the financial security his dad was able to achieve might allow GRIII to stay longer in college if he so wanted. I'd be very surprised, given the economics of the NBA, if he stays more than 2 years.

 

*As a comparison, GRII signed a 10 year/$68 million contract in 1994. This year, Anthony Davis signed a 3 year contract for $15 million guaranteed with a team option on the 4th year.

funkywolve

January 7th, 2013 at 11:02 AM ^

I don't think there was any rule back then requiring players to stay in college a certain amount of time.  Both Isiah Thomas and Magic Johnson left after their sophomore years.  However,  those were the rare exceptions.  I'd also venture to guess that while the money was good back then, the amount of money first round draft picks got wasn't nearly as rediculous as why players get today.

Needs

January 7th, 2013 at 11:38 AM ^

Good call on Isiah and Magic. I found a wikipedia article that explains that in their era, players had to be four years post high school to be eligible for the draft, but players with financial need could get a "hardship waiver," which seemed to be automatically granted to anyone good enough to be a star. 

Isiah's rookie contract was 4 years/ $1.6 million, but that was before the NBA had really taken off in the mid-80s. The average contract in 1984, for comparison, was around $300,000. Couldn't find Jordan's rookie contract. Rookie deals really took off in the early 1990s, with deals like GRII's being far richer than the deals rookies can get today.

The NBA's salary structure is really complicated, but the new CBA essentially holds rookie contracts (at least for high draft picks) below market value. Rookie contracts are set by the CBA according to draft slot. The contracts are for two years with team options for a 3rd and 4th. Players with less than 6 years in can sign deals for 25% of their team's cap (unless the player has been voted to 2 All Star teams or has won MVP -- the "Derrick Rose" rule -- then they can get 30%).

The new CBA essentially transferred money from highly drafted rookies and superstars like LeBron, who could demand far more than 30% of their team's cap, to the NBA's "middle classes" on second contracts.

Lots of stuff here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eligibility_for_the_NBA_Draft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_salary_cap

dinsdale613

January 6th, 2013 at 11:34 PM ^

I'm just not used to this yet.  I am used to a scrapy Michigan team that can maybe find its way into the tournament if things go well.  This is the best Michigan team i have seen in a very, very long time.  I think we all just need to sit back and enjoy this ride.  The best part is, i definetly see this continuing.  Recruiting will continue to go very well.  This style of play is going to be very appealing to recruits. 

Nolongerusingaccount

January 7th, 2013 at 4:54 AM ^

No doubt Burke is great, but there is no way he holds a candle to Iverson or Thomas in terms of pure quickness and athleticism. I have watched every Bulls game since 1988 and have NBA.tv so I can watch other teams play. Basically, I am a pro hoops junkie. If Burke had Iverson's quickness and athleticism, there is no doubt he would be a top 2 pick. Right now, he barely cracks the top 15 in what is considered a weak draft. That is not to say I don't love Burke's game, which I do. He has a better shot than Iverson did at the same age. If you want to make comparisons, I think he is more like Kyrie Irving than Iverson, and if you think I am dissing Burke, Irving was the No. 1 his draft year. With that said, I really believe Burke can lead us to the Final Four this year! Go Blue!

michfan4borw

January 7th, 2013 at 9:53 AM ^

Iverson, Isiah Thomas?  How about Magic Johnson? 

According to Umhoops.com, no big ten player--until Trey Burke thus far--has averaged 17 points and 7 assists. 

I'm not saying he's as good as Magic, but to even be mentioned in comparison to such a legend is pretty impressive. 

(note: umhoops was relaying the statistic from Dave Revsine)

Needs

January 7th, 2013 at 11:47 AM ^

It's an incredibly impressive standard, but it doesn't really say much about playing style, which is what people were mainly comparing. 

Burke's great, but he isn't going to totally revolutionize the position like Magic did. The idea that a 6'9" guy could play the point was totally unheard of until he did it. (And really, full credit to Jud Heathcoate for not sticking him in the post like most coaches at the time would have done).

I buy the Chris Paul comparison more than Iverson, at least in terms of college. Iverson was very much a shoot first, shoot second, guy at Georgetown (and didn't change much in the pros), where Burke has the ability, like Paul, to play primarily as a facilitator and then flip the switch and take over as a scorer.

(This is why I can't believe all these mock drafts that have him in the mid-20s. Some GM is going to look at Burke's game, look at Paul's, and take Burke in the lottery).

k1400

January 7th, 2013 at 8:08 AM ^

Took my son to the game, first time back in Crisler for both of us since the renovations.  Out on the concourse it doesn't even look like the same place!  And the guys on the floor.... haven't seen anything like that since the early 90s.  Flashbacks of Jalen to King on some of those dunks.

Mr. Yost

January 7th, 2013 at 8:47 AM ^

I think the we're a "hot" team comments are vastly overrated. We're not "hot"...we're good.

Illinois is hot, with a very good player. Take away Paul and I'd like to see what they can do. Go ahead and take away Burke, Michigan still wins by double digits. Take away Hardaway - samsies.

We're not reliant on any one player or thing. Can we be beat? Sure, it's basketball, anyone can lose. But right now, if all things are equal and we're playing our game...Duke is the only team in the country that may be able to keep up.

We're not hot. We're good - damn good.

Mr. Yost

January 7th, 2013 at 10:09 AM ^

Taking away or keying on a player in game...and an injury are two totally different things.

Trey would still have an impact even if someone found a way to take him out of the game. The attention towards him would free up the next 2-5 best players and we'd be fine.

Illinois, if you key and take away Paul...or Ohio, if you key and take away Thomas. They're going to struggle to win the game if you can successfully take away their best player.

You can successfully take away Burke and we'll still beat you.

PM

January 7th, 2013 at 10:59 AM ^

I guess I misunderstood your earlier point if you meant take him out of a game by game planning, trapping or whatever vs. losing him to injury. I hope you are correct, although I am not sure anyone will be able to do that the way Trey is playing right now.

Smash Lampjaw

January 7th, 2013 at 9:11 AM ^

I understand why most everyone seems to be identifying Minnesota as the threat, but what the heck happened up there in the first half yesterday? If they score 17 in the first half on Michigan, I think it will be over. Granted, they made up for it in the 2nd half, but what kind of team scores 17 at home against Northwestern?

woosterwolverine1224

January 7th, 2013 at 9:45 AM ^

deadly team.  Teams go cold, a true testament of good teams is that even when they go cold, they can still win (see us vs. Iowa yesterday).  Minnesota has a ton of weapons and Mbakwe is an animal inside.  I think the game at the barn will be one of the best games all season.

michfan4borw

January 7th, 2013 at 10:01 AM ^

This seems to be the most obvious weakness defensively for our team.  If Horford were 100%, I'd be much more comfortable going to The Barn.

Fwiw, we don't get a return game with the gophers at Crisler.  I'm not sure if this is bad or good.  Playing them once is a plus, but not getting them at home is a minus.

Indonacious

January 7th, 2013 at 10:09 AM ^

From UMHOOPS,

On Jon Horford dressing [for the Iowa game]: “He wanted to dress, and he’s getting closer and closer (to returning). We’ll push him a little harder this week. … He hasn’t gone full-court yet, but he’s all-out half-court.”

I hope this means he can come back for the osu game this sunday...but if not he should be back for the minny game the following thursday.

 

http://www.umhoops.com/2013/01/06/video-quotes-john-beilein-reacts-to-2…

 

Indonacious

January 7th, 2013 at 10:04 AM ^

An interesting tidbit regarding our offense from kenpom...

Our Adj O ranking is 3.1 points higher than #2 Indiana (123.2 vs. 120.1), the next drop in 3.1 points puts you between the 8th and 9th offensive teams. It just goes to show how high of a level our offense is playing at right now, even relative to the nations best teams.

Brady21kp

January 7th, 2013 at 10:19 AM ^

I was baffeled when I heard Evan Smotrycz was transferring last year. Belein must have game him a pretty good clue that his services would be needed on "right bench" only. Enjoying this ride! Go Blue!