How does MBB become a truly elite program?

Submitted by WindyCityBlue on

Over the weekend, I was having a conversation with a couple of Michigan fans regarding the "elite" status of our program.  All agreed that we are not really an elite program.  While we have shown flashes of it lately, we really needed to maintain some level of consistency and sustainability to really be considered elite.  Also, we all agreed that we are likely in that second tier below the traditional elite programs (Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, etc).

Where opinions started to differ, was whether we can truly EVER be an elite program given the state of college basketball.  One guy was very much like many on this board: we can't be a Duke or Kansas etc. and that just the way it is and there is nothing we can do about it.  A couple of us, including myself, we're less satisfied and more bullish about where this program can go.  To get to that next level of college programs will largely be dictated by winning more big games on a big stage.  And in doing so, we think the following things need to happen (in no particular order):

1. Recruit slightly better talent-wise (i.e. more stars) than what we currently do and more consistantly.  There seems to be a high correlation between talent and winning (duh!).  Finding diamonds in the rough are great, but seems as though you can't build a sustainable elite program on them.  

2. Spearhead a change in NCAA regulations around recruiting.  Third hand accounts suggest recruiting is a dirty business, and one in which we will not partake.  This obviously hurts our ability to recruit top talent and address the issue in point #1 above.  For example, if we can somehow lead an effort to push the NCAA to adopt a hockey type model for recruits (in essence mitigating the one-and-done effect) and implementing tighter regulation around some of the recutiing filth (i.e. bagmen, etc), we can be more competitive regarding recruiting.

3. Coaching profile.  I like JB.  I think he is one of the best minds in the game.  I wish we got him when he was younger.   Our opinion: the best model in college basketball is to find a young, talented, hungry coach that will stay ~20+ years in the program, implementing best practices and innovative basketball methodologies (i.e. Coach K, Izzo, Boehiem, etc.).  This would give the program an "identity" that resonates well with top recruits across a couple generations. There are obvious excpetions here.

So what are your thoughts?  How can Michigan become a truly elite college basketball program? Or perhaps you think we already are an elite program.  Would be curious to hear those thoughts too.

Lucky Socks

March 30th, 2015 at 1:26 PM ^

Consistent excellence makes you elite.  MSU, Duke, and Kansas are literally in the conversation literally every March, and that's why they're elite.  You can afford to miss once in a while (like Kentucky, Florida, or UCONN). But consistent Sweet 16s, Elite 8s, and something approximating one final four per 4-year class (that's hard to do...I really do give Izzo credit for that tidbit that barely died) will make you "Elite".  Of course, you have to win it all once too.  

Brandywine

March 31st, 2015 at 12:18 AM ^

Consistent excellence is of course the prerequisite, but it's the method/model Michigan chooses that will determine whether it can achieve that.

Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, Duke, Arizona and Louisville under Pitino can surive off of one-and-done / two-and-done players. Michigan as a basketball school simply does not have the profile to attract enough to follow this model. It won't ever happen.

Because of what our administration wants our image to be, it won't ever hire a coach that will attract that kind of talent on a consistent basis. Michigan will develop some elite players, and land a few studs in recruiting, but if they leave early there won't always be the numbers to step up the following year.

The best Michigan can try for is is Wisconsin, MSU type success. What MSU has now is what UM football had under Carr - a winning culture built over many, many years. Kids know their roles and thus you can count on the depth to fill them when players ahead of them depart. Beilein is trying desperately to create this. Unfortunately, the meteoric rise of the Burke's, McGary's and Stauskas and subsequent early entries stunted this progress. Sure Stauskas stepped up last year, but he was special. Irvin, Walton and Levert couldn't do it this year.

UM finally has depth now, and the kind of depth that it can probably count on not leaving en masse year after year. Do this 4-5 years in a row, and UM will build that winning culture and kids will be able to consistently step up when their position opens.

OSU is a different case, in my opinion. They compete consistently by typically recruiting at least one major stud every year. They can do that because of Ohio, there's bound to be one in-state who dreams of being a buckeye. Michigan doesn't have that luxury in-state, and because of it's image-control won't attract the kind of athletic freaks that OSU does, relatively speaking. It has to be the MSU way.

Tater

March 30th, 2015 at 1:18 PM ^

Sorry, but most of the truly elite programs are notorious for cheating.  Only Duke seems to have hidden it behind the squeaky-clean image of Coach K; the rest have had a lot of "smoke" around their programs in the last ten years.  

Until everyone's boosters are allowed to pay players, Michigan will probably be on that second tier.  Under the current system, the teams that prosper in basketball and football are those that cheat.  When confronted, they admit nothing, deny everything, make countercharges and whine incessantly about how their punishments were "unfair."

Luckily, basketball is a funny game.  The hoop can turn into a hula hoop or it can turn into a thimble at a moment's notice.  Except for this year, the team that buys the best players doesn't always win.  

There is still room for great coaching and great player development.  There are going to be years like this one, but this team could end up at the Final Four next year.  You just never know.  

bluebyyou

March 30th, 2015 at 12:42 PM ^

Although I was delighted it happened, the previous two years were also a bit of an abberation. If anyone had predicted that Burke would have been the player of the year in 2013 and Stauskus the top player in the B1G in 2014, when they were initially recruited, the predicitions woud have been looked at somewhat strangely.

Blue-Chip

March 30th, 2015 at 12:51 PM ^

That's true based on recruiting profiles. But how many years have we watched this staff develop players who perform beyond their star level. That's the only way to rise to the top of  the ranks without delving into the sketchy world of AAU/one-and-done guys other posters have mentioned.

bluebyyou

March 30th, 2015 at 1:08 PM ^

As I said, I was delighted.  There was no way you could have predicted that Burke and Stauskus would reach their respective levels of success. It was a perfect storm of talent and coaching that happens very rarely, even for the nation's top recruits, which neither player was. McGary's success was not a surprise based on where he was in HS.  Sure, Beilein deserves a pat on the back for being an excellent judge of talent that others don't recognize, but player of the year?  

Anyone predicting that achievement two years in advance should do well playing the stock market.

FrankMurphy

March 30th, 2015 at 8:52 PM ^

Beilein has been doing that his entire career; it's not an aberration. Spike Albrecht's only other scholarship offer was Appalachian State, and now he would easily be a starting PG at a lot of Division I schools. Caris LeVert was an anonymous unrated 3-star, and he has a chance to be at least B1G player of the year if he returns. By the time Jordan Morgan left the program, he was far outperforming expectations. Beilein even did it at West Virginia with Kevin Pittsnogle and Mike Gansey. 

NFG

March 30th, 2015 at 12:21 PM ^

Ensure that when JB leaves, he has groomed his replacement from within. Have that replacemet be young and able to connect to high profile recruits, but yet maintain the status quo JB put in place to develop and recognize talent. The facilities are there, we've been hanging banners for 4 years now. We just need to ensure long-term stability.

Gucci Mane

March 30th, 2015 at 12:26 PM ^

To become elite we would have to get our hands dirty, or we would need the ncaa to change their model. Look at MSU, as good as they have been with Izzo they could never match the elite schools.

Stringer Bell

March 30th, 2015 at 12:50 PM ^

UNC has multiple national championships and Kansas has, what, 12 straight conference championships plus their natty in 2008?  That's a bit better than whatt MSU has done.  Also don't forget UConn.  4 natties since 1999.  They definitely belong in the elite, even though they're almost never mentioned there.

MilkSteak

March 30th, 2015 at 1:22 PM ^

Too many people disregard that. I feel as though many people are giving more weight to historic achievements rather than recent ones. 

In the past, names have mattered a ton. They still do to a certain extent, but recent success has much more bearing on a recruit's decision these days. If I were a recruit, I'd want to play for UK, Duke, UConn, MSU, and maybe Butler or Kansas. You're guaranteed to make the tournament and probably do pretty well.

funkywolve

March 30th, 2015 at 1:56 PM ^

Over that period only 10 teams have won a NC in basketball:

UConn - 4

Florida -2

UNC - 2

Duke - 2

The other winners are Kentucky, Louisville, Kansas, Syracuse, Maryland and MSU.  It's a essentially, with the possible exception of Maryland, a who's who of the elite programs in college basketball.

Stringer Bell

March 30th, 2015 at 2:03 PM ^

Well I'd definitely put Duke, UNC, and UConn among the elite.  Florida is not a historic power but there's no doubt they've been elite for the past 10 years.  Kentucky, Louisville, and Kansas get points for having fairly recent championships (MSU's last title was 15 years ago, that's a long time).  I guess I've just never  been impressed with how many times a team can claim that it was one of the 4 best in the nation.  

Gulogulo37

March 30th, 2015 at 7:43 PM ^

They also made at least one national championship game appearance that I can think of. They were unlucky to have faced that UNC team that was one of the best in a long time, maybe until Kentucky this year.

Annoys me when people say that about the Fab 5 too. They didn't just make 2 Final Fours. They wont their first game of it and made the national championship game. Obviously things get harder the farther you go, so don't cheat a team who made it to the final round.

JHendo

March 30th, 2015 at 1:54 PM ^

I think there are more legitimate tiers than what we are recognizing.  There are the blue bloods with past dynasties who will always be able to get recruits through their name alone, even though they often are having great success on the court (Duke, Kentucky, UNC, Indiana Kansas, UCLA).  Then there are the second tier elite teams, teams that have a good history of winning and a high amount of overall success, especially sustained recently (Arizona, UConn, MSU, possibly Syracuse and some others I'm forgetting).  

I think we would fall in that 3rd tier of teams with a decent history of winning and spurts of greatness, but are prone to a occasional inconsistency year by year (Michigan, Maryland, Wisconsin, Villanova, Florida, Georgetown, etc...).

Gulogulo37

March 30th, 2015 at 7:51 PM ^

Yeah I guess that's where we are. Michigan has not been that good historically actually, and it seems a lot of people are unaware of that. I'm not sure who has a better head-to-head record against us in the B1G, but I do remember seeing Ohio State does. I'd also guess Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, and State do. So we're slightly better than the middle of the pack historically in the B1G. Anyone complaining about where we are with Beilein is nuts. Where is Beilein among Michigan coaches for winning percentage? I'd guess he hasn't been around long enough to have many overall wins.

EDIT: The program's win percentage is .600 with vacated wins and .582 without. It's right on the wikipedia page for MBB.

JHendo

March 31st, 2015 at 12:29 AM ^

Michigan actually owns a winning record in basketball against MSU, and if you include the vacated wins, their all-time records are neck and neck. the Izzo era (especially his NCAA tourney prowess) coupled with the post-scandal decline of Michigan is really the only thing that is separating Michigan from being considered the overall historically better team.

I hate to deal with hypotheticals as it makes me sound like a whiner, but had the Ed Martin related sanctions not happened, MSU simply doesn't become the powerhouse that it is.

Blue In NC

March 30th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^

Disagree.  Maybe in terms of results but in the recruiting and prestige world, MSU is not on the same level with UNC and Kansas and probably not Arizona either.  Of course, I tend to think of the truly elite schools as Duke, Kentucky, UNC, Kansas, maybe Arizona and maybe UCLA (they were there but have fallen off).  To me, MSU is clearly a notch below and Michigan is another notch below.  Michigan can get to MSU's level but not sure we will ever be in that truly elite group.

bo_lives

March 30th, 2015 at 1:02 PM ^

MSU has a national championship and 7 Final Fours in the last 15 years, the most of any other coach in that time period. Even if you are going just by National Championships, Izzo has as many as Kansas and Kentucky in that time span, which is 1.

bronxblue

March 30th, 2015 at 7:34 PM ^

MSU last won the title when lots of the kids they are recruiting were toddlers.  UNC has won multiple titles and are a national contender more times than not.  Kansas is the class of a pretty good conference and consistently gets seeded high in the tourney.  Arizona is a closer analog, but a good Arizona team destroys MSU most years.

MSU is a steady program.  Some years it comes together and they ride a good bracket to a FF.  I mean, they are a #7 seed for a reason, and in the past 15 years they've only been a top-4 seed 6 times.  They have a system that works in college, where you roll out older lineups and beat up on younger teams.  Sometimes it works, sometimes you get curb-stomped and sent packing.  

Michigan has a ceiling that can win against anyone in the country; MSU feels like it will hold on to the way college basketball was in 1999-2000 until Izzo leaves, but I wouldn't consider a school with the same number of national titles as Maryland in the past 15 years to be a truly elite squad.

Gulogulo37

March 30th, 2015 at 7:54 PM ^

"I wouldn't consider a school with the same number of national titles as Maryland in the past 15 years to be a truly elite squad."

So Kansas and Kentucky aren't elite. You're choosing one good thing from several programs without looking at their overall body of work, which has flaws (except friggin Duke), but then criticizing State for a specific flaw.

bronxblue

March 30th, 2015 at 10:24 PM ^

The Maryland reference was a bit of hyperbole, but fine.  MSU has had 5 conference titles in the last 15 years.  Kansas over that time has had 12, UK has had 7 and that includes a rough stretch in the late 00's when they were going through coaching transitions.  Florida has two national titles and 6 conference titles over that time.  And more than anything else, all of those teams have highs that are greater than MSU.  I am not trying to dismiss what MSU has done - they are a very consistent, good program.  But check out their tourney seeding and you see a whole lot of "meh" mixed in with spurts of very good teams.

My point is that there are very few elite programs in any sport, and that's how it should be.  If there were 15-20 "elite" teams, then that term would have no meaning.  

If MSU wins another title this year, then maybe we'd have to reevaluate.  But right now this feels like a program that got a good draw and played well, but most basketball fans would say they've had an easier road than others, and they just don't "look" all that good out there.  

bronxblue

March 30th, 2015 at 10:29 PM ^

Nope.  Haven't for some time.  The closest they got was under Bo, and even those teams were far from dominant save for that stretch between 1971 and 1980.  The one, I guess, difference between football and basketball is that football took much longer to level the playing field in terms of scholarship rules and a "national" champion compared to basketball, which has had some form a tournament since the late 30s.  

MichiganMAN47

March 30th, 2015 at 12:26 PM ^

Miller is a great coach who has many years left. To become a blue blood, you need an elite coach for 10+ years at one point or another. Michigan needs success for a few more years under Beilein before we can get there. Michigan is already a top 15 basketball program- we have 5 final four appearances, in which we reached the championship game every time, which is pretty successful. Right now our team just needs an elite big man and then we can beat anyone.

jmblue

March 30th, 2015 at 4:50 PM ^

Yep.  We didn't get much luck of the draw though, facing three of the best teams ever in 1965 UCLA, 1976 Indiana and 1992 Duke.

1993 UNC and 2013 Louisville were also very good  teams (both #1 seeds) although they were definitely more beatable than the three above.  We'd actually beaten UNC earlier that season.  The '93 title loss is still probably my most painful sports memory.

1989 Seton Hall was the only really favorable matchup and we got it done, although we cut it awfully close.

MilkSteak

March 30th, 2015 at 1:25 PM ^

Arizona is my second team in basketball for whatever reason. I want Miller to get that championship and join the top tier of coaches in the business. Michigan and Beilein are right up there with them, with less recruiting success.

Coldwater

March 30th, 2015 at 12:29 PM ^

It's really #1 in original post. You just see the teams that are playing still. They're better athletes, they can jump higher, they run faster, they're more fast twitch.



I see more toughness in these elite teams. How many times this year were Michigan players accused of being soft and wimpy? A lot! You just can't have that and be considered elite.



JB certainly has the mind and brains for the

X's and O's, and a track record of winning and putting guys into the NBA. Somehow he has to convince a better, tougher caliber of player to sign up at Michigan.