Comparing coaches
I was a student at Richmond when Beilein coached there, so I was pretty pumped when Michigan signed him. He's got a great track record building programs, and he was able to build WVU into a national contender. Year one under his coaching was historically awful. Year two showed promise, and with so many key pieces back for year three, we fans were understandably juiced. Now we are understandably disappointed. But I haven't heard anybody calling for rolling heads. The lack of execution on the players' part has not really fallen at Beilein's feet.
When we signed RR, I was also pumped. I was fired up to see a wide-open offense romping through helpless defenses in the Big House. After a few miserable experiences against the spread, I was stoked to see the powers of the spread used for good. Before he even got started, there were some grumblings. Year one under RR was historically awful, and the grumblings intensified. Year two showed promise, but crumbled. And folks grumbled. Heaven help RR if his year three compares to JB's.
Why are these two WVU transplants sitting on seats of such disparate temperatures? It can't be all results. Do we really care that much how they act in press conferences? Have the NCAA infractions under RR been that egregious? Or is football just the one sport we love the most, while we had become inured to mediocrity in the post Fab Five years? I'm not saying JB should be canned; I'm just saying that maybe we should hold the two coaches up together when we decide how much pressure to put on RR.
February 28th, 2010 at 9:36 PM ^
Well, Beilein did go to the tournament and win a game...
February 28th, 2010 at 10:19 PM ^
Taking Michigan to the tournament earned him a lot of slack.
Personally I care about football a lot more
someone who sees it simialr to me. VERY WELL put.......I applaud your effort, I thought I was the ONLY one who still supported the program no matter who is in there.
February 28th, 2010 at 9:38 PM ^
One is Michigan football, the other is Michigan basketball... do I really have to explain why we feel differently about those?
February 28th, 2010 at 9:40 PM ^
This is your answer right here.
February 28th, 2010 at 9:40 PM ^
Beilein's seat is a lot colder. Might be b/c the team he took over had no expectations. I tend to think the reason is Beilein's departure from his former institution was a lot less controversial than RR's. I would say that the PR they got before even playing a game has to do with the temperature of their respective chairs.
I'll leave it at that.
February 28th, 2010 at 9:51 PM ^
I think a predominant reason Beilein's seat is much colder is he came into a program that was still grappling with ethics violations and probation. Beilein is that clean figure head for a program trying to get out of that shadow. And he has seen success.
RR is here to win. That alone. He isn't resuscitating a program. He took over a winning program, and his seat is hotter because he was brought here to win, and he isn't. It's as simple as that.
February 28th, 2010 at 9:54 PM ^
Basketball was in a horrid state, and...still is in pretty bad shape.
Football was in pretty good shape, and now is in pretty bad shape.
That's the other reason. The fact that for various reasons Beilein hasn't had a lot of drama swirling around him probably helps too, but that goes back to football vs. basketball, and how the media covers each differently.
February 28th, 2010 at 9:57 PM ^
the lack of execution on the players' part should fall at Beilein's feet. At this point all the startes, except our best two, are his guys. He wanted Novak, LLP, and Douglass because of thier 3-ball abilities. While I don't think he ever dreamed we would shoot this bad it is up to him to change things up if necessary. If you want to live by the three and die by the three by choice then he needs to be held accountable. I think our biggest problem is that we don't have a big guy in the middle. OSU would be Michigan 2.0 without Lauderdale in there. We are really hurting without a center in there.
You realize that he has had 2 recruiting classes and in each of them, he has had a big man go down for reasons beyond his control? Actually, he has had 3 guys go down if you count the center that couldn't make it over to the states and is starting and doing well in a professional European league. This team would look much different with any combination of Morgan, Benzig, and Cronin. I also think it is a little narrow-minded to say that he is living and dying by the three because he likes his team to jack up threes. The lack of a low post game multiplies every problem we have. Douglass and Novak are both playing out of position, unless you think Beilein wants to have Novak guarding PFs around the B10. The development of Morris at the point is just one part of the team progressing-next year, McLimans, Morgan, and Vogrich are going to have to come into their games a little.
I've been wondering about sophomore slumps in a historical context, but I don't have time to do any research on it.
Another thing I've mentioned many times before is that JB's game doesn't involve a big low post dominating player. It's more of the european (think Dirk) bigman that can put the ball on the floor, pass, and shoot. We've seen Sims evolve into that as the year went on.
I said they are hurting because they don't have any big men. Sims is not a center and is not physical enough to even be a dominate 4. I never said anything bad about Beilein in my post. I think winning and losing should always fall at the coaches feet. My point about living and dying by the three is because we hit them last year and hailed Beilein for the teams great play. It is only fair that now that the system has faltered we also give the coach some blame. There is absolutely no reason that Douglass should be playing point and there is no need for him to. This has confused me all year long. LLP and Morris are better ball handlers and decision makers. Douglass should be at the two coming off of screens. The main reason that the coach should be criticized for our play is the fact that the guys are taking the shots he wants them to, he has the guys shooting them that he wants and recruited to do so, and he hasn't changed his approach all season. I think Beilein is a good coach, not great, but solid. I think Morris' development will tell us how good of a "coach" he is though. He has the raw talent to be a really good player. He plays good D and makes good decisions but needs to develop his scoring and needs some confidence. He really looks like a freshmen on the offensive end and should look to score more. By the time his an upper classmen he should be one of the better point guards in the big ten. To be honest, I don't see us contending for any national championships with Beilein as coach but I do see us making some elite 8s and such. Having Morgan, Benzing and Cronin this year may have made a difference but imagine if we still had Udoh. Beilein tried to make him a jump shooter, which looked ugly, and he didn't want to be. Remember his quote when he was leaving was that he wanted to play for a coach and in a system that would prepare him for the NBA. The fact is, if we had S. Curry, JJ Redick, and Ray Allen if the shots aren't falling we won't win by simply shooting more.
February 28th, 2010 at 11:53 PM ^
good points above. Also... football has the best facilities around while basketball has the worst. I think it's realistic to have high expectations for football when taking their resources into account.
Agreed but football also had the weight room revamped under RR and Barwis and the indoor facility wasn't available until his second season as coach, right?
Simple, we went 3-9 and ended the longest consecutive bowl streak amongst other streaks we had going for us. All these unfortunate events were unheard of and people, for lack of a better term, freaked out. UM basketball on the other hand, we had already hit rock bottom before Beilein came on board.
Michigan is known around the country as a football school with a long track record of winning from '69 through '07. Eventually we were bound to see a lean period in football program but hopefully RR can get the team back on the winning track. The football expectations are much higher, thus there will be more heat on RR to produce.
From 93 - 07 we had almost as many seasons with 4 or more losses (7) as with 3 losses or fewer (8). Looking at it that way, for the decade and a half before RR came on we were mediocre/unacceptable almost as aften as we were good/acceptable . . . and that's if a three loss season is acceptable. Yes, the football program has more prestige, but we may be more caught up on nostalgia than used to reveling in success. Even Bo, who restored the program to levels it hadn't consistently achieved since the mid to late 40's had a stretch of seasons in which he lost 3, 4, 3, and 6 games.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't love football more, or that our expectations of the football program shouldn't be higher than our expectations for the basketball program. I guess I'm suggesting that we should be a little more realistic in assessing how good we've historically been, and that it might take a little time to achieve our pinnacle again.
From a results standpoint, Belein's team in year three has still executed pretty well, they are just shooting at a MUCH lower percentage. Rodriguez has been the target of a Freep jihad and I wouldn't be surprised if he gets a better job once he turns the program around in the next 2-3 years. I can't think of a coach that has put up with more unwarranted media BS. Even if he wins he still might not "win."
I expect Beilein's seat to have warmed significantly, at least in the eyes of the fan. This season the team as significantly underachieved. I expected this to be Michigan's record next year.
After next season, RR and Beilein could have their positions reversed.