Grasping for Hope: Butler as Reason for Michigan Optimism?

7 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
April 6th, 2010 at 10:09 AM
#1
DoctorDave
DoctorDave's picture
Joined: 01/05/2009
MGoPoints: 642
Grasping for Hope: Butler as Reason for Michigan Optimism?

I read with interest Allen Kha’s Bleacher Report article, “Final Four 2010: 9 Reasons Butler Will Win It All” (and why they should not be considered a Cinderella). While there are talent and system differences between Butler and Michigan, as well as the disparity in historical stature, I got a strong sense that Kha’s optimism was rooted in certain principles, many of which seem to be in development in Beilein’s program. (These are not Kha’s “9 Reasons,” but nine observations gleaned from his article):

  1. Butler recruits well in its own backyard. Ten players on their roster come from their home state of Indiana.
  2. Butler recruits players who buy into “The Butler Way” – unselfish, hustle every play, smart, and good shooters
  3. Butler recruits players with a high basketball IQ
  4. Butler focuses first on suffocating defense, not turning the ball over, and winning hustle plays
  5. Butler takes 50% of its shots beyond the arc; four players had over 100 3-pt shots (and shot under 35%)
  6. Butler has the ability to dictate tempo against better teams
  7. Butler lacks front-court size and has no classic post players, but still uses an inside-out approach
  8. Butler has one person who can take over if necessary (potential NBA talent, Hayward)
  9. Butler knows how to win when their only post player is perennially on the bench in foul trouble (6’8” Howard)

Perhaps it’s my desire to see hope even in places it doesn’t normally exist. But is there some encouragement to be found for fans of the Michigan program in noting how Butler built a championship-level program?

Whenever I think "majestic soul-funk," I think Michigan Football.

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
April 6th, 2010 at 10:15 AM | I bet that's the first time ever (Score:1)
GoBlueScott
GoBlueScott's picture
Joined: 11/18/2008
MGoPoints: 62

The Bleacher Report has been wrong ....

What?

SARCASM

April 6th, 2010 at 10:38 AM | I think a fair amount of (Score:1)
UMfan21
Joined: 09/28/2009
MGoPoints: 1769

I think a fair amount of Butler could translate over to UofM. But Hayward had a rare size/skill combo that we don't have at UofM. Maybe Smotz can be our Hayward in a few years...

I am probably mistaken, but it just felt like Butler had better shooters than us. If they had a wide open look, generally they made it. When we had an open look, I cringed.

Butler also played much more physical defense than UofM. From Howard rooting his man out, to the hand checking and on the ball defense...they tended to get steals from solid man defense. We tend to get steals from errant passes in zone play.

We have a long ways to go to be that good, but I can see some similarities. I think those tall, lean shooters is what beilein wants...I just wish they would stay healthy for us.

April 6th, 2010 at 11:28 AM | Butler is a better team than us (Score:1)
victors2000
victors2000's picture
Joined: 03/21/2009
MGoPoints: 2324

Why is this so? Do they have better recruits? Better Coaching? Better schemes? More heart? To me, it's everything; it all came together and clicked and they excelled. Just like '09 for us, sometimes it all comes together and the whole is better than the sum of the parts.

You have to play this game like somebody just hit your mother with a two-by-four. ~Dan Birdwell

April 6th, 2010 at 10:43 AM | I don't think we need to grasp for hope (Score:1)
Erik_in_Dayton
Erik_in_Dayton's picture
Joined: 12/03/2008
MGoPoints: 6784

Beilein has taken four different schools to the NCAA Tournament. Brandon will build better practice facilities and update Crisler. This program is going up, it's just going to take some patience.

It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future. -- Yogi Berra

                         

April 6th, 2010 at 11:56 AM | Height (Score:1)
Tater
Tater's picture
Joined: 08/13/2008
MGoPoints: 10373

Hayward: 6-9.
Howard: 6-8.
Jukes: 6-8.

If Michigan's bigs can perform as well as these three, Michigan has a very good chance of being like Butler. I have used Butler's team of a few years ago as the upside to the current roster often, but Butler suddenly got bigger and it made the difference between making the title game and not making the elite eight.

Especially in the Big Ten, it still comes down to height. Michigan played Gibson, who isn't fast or coordinated enough to affect the game a lot, and Sims, who may or may not be a legit 6-8, as their only big options this year. Often, it seemed like Gibson played barely more than the one minute logged by Butler's 6-11 Andrew Smith last night.

If the big guys all stay, improve, and play as a team, Michigan could be this good by the time they are juniors. There is a lot to be said for having a lot of players who aren't quite good enough to leave for the NBA but good enough to win a lot of college games if they stay long enough to truly gel as a team.

Here's hoping the next two seasons of waiting for this to happen turn out better than this season did.

 

 

 

April 6th, 2010 at 2:11 PM | Another difference (Score:1)
funkywolve
Joined: 10/08/2008
MGoPoints: 1948

I think one of the biggest differences between Butler and UM is with the perimeter players. It seemed like most of Butler's perimeter players had the ability to penetrate into the lane and get good looks (either for themselves or passing to a teammate) off the penetration. UM doesn't seem to have to many players who are capable of that.

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.