How does MBB become a truly elite program?
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.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:45 PM ^
I think that JB can bring this program to elite level by doing something similar than what Tom Izzo does.
We need upperclassmen on the team if we aren't going to recruit like Kentucky. The experience edge is huge, just ask Izzo and Ryan. Roster continuity will create consistency.
We need talent on the roster to compliment experience. With the coaching ability of JB, he really only needs about 2 superstars on the team. If they are one and done or two and done that is fine, cause the continuity will support roster turnover. Talent + continuity will create elite teams.
We need time to elevate the talent level of the upperclassmen. We're seeing that already. We started with Novak + Douglas + Morgan. Now those same players (Chatman, Doyle, Wilson, Walton) are much more highly regarded/have higher ceilings. Winning allows you to get those players.
Last, but probably the most important, is that we need to win.
Both Sparty and the Badgers are in the FF largely because of their upperclassmen. "Frank the Tank" is a senior, Sam Dekker a junior. Trice and Dawson are both seniors; Valentine and Costello both juniors.
I don't know about the NBA draft status of Trice and Dawson. but Kaminsky and Dekker were both potential first-rounders (I believe). That they forwent the draft to come back for another season was a win-win for them and for the Wisconsin BB brand. How do Izzo and Ryan do that?
I also believe this would have been Nik, GRIII, and Mitch's (assuming no pot-smoking) junior year. Maybe because of his age Mitch might not have stuck around, but Nik and GRIII with a healthy Caris and Walton would have been in the hunt for Indianapolis, IMO.
March 30th, 2015 at 10:50 PM ^
March 30th, 2015 at 12:53 PM ^
I think it would help to be able to keep guys around for more than 2 years. It seems like the roster turnover has been high the last few years. I know this is silly to complain about (We all understand that JB is a great developer of talent).
I think the missing peice is a dominant big man. It's something JB's teams have almost always been lacking. We've gotten glimpses of what it could be with McGary a couple of years ago. I wouldn't call Jordan Morgan "dominant", but what a difference between the team last year and this year. Imagine what that team could be like with 4 shooters and a Jabari Parker-like post presence.
March 30th, 2015 at 12:58 PM ^
Just fyi - here is a nice link by John Gasaway - 7 teams have won 25% of NCAA tourney games since 2000. Lists all the wins (prior to 2015 tourney) for 14 years by team. It's not be all end all - doesnt include conf championships of course but good fact sheet. Teams who suck in the tourney but do great in the regular season like Villanova get punished here. I guess I underestimated Wisconsin's run here of late - they should definitely be tier 2. I also underestimated Texas.
Michigan is tied with Georgetown with 10 wins - so basically our entire run in 14 years was 2 tournaments. That's not tier 2. Unless Pitt, Xavier, West Virginia, Purdue, Stanford et al are part of your massive tier 2.
http://johngasaway.com/2014/11/06/seven-teams-account-for-25-percent-of…
NCAA tournament
wins since 2000
1. Kansas 38
2. Michigan State 36
3. Duke 34
North Carolina 34
5. Florida 33
6. Connecticut 32
Kentucky 32
8. Arizona 25
9. Louisville 24
Syracuse 24
Wisconsin 24
12. UCLA 23
13. Ohio State 19
Texas 19
15. Butler 17
Illinois 17
Maryland 17
18. Gonzaga 16
Memphis 16
Pitt 16
21. Xavier 15
22. Oklahoma 13
Marquette 13
Tennessee 13*
Villanova 13
26. Indiana 12
Purdue 12
West Virginia 12
29. Oklahoma State 11
Stanford 11
31. Georgetown 10
Michigan 10
It would be helpful to see a chart that shows how Michigan compares over Beilein's tenure.
Well if 4 years is your window UM has the same 10 wins and everyone else is going to go down of course. The first years of Beileien were not great as he was rebuilding. I said above if your window is 3 years Michigan is tier 1. I dont think anyone can seriously look at a program for 3 years as a judgement of what that program should be labeled. Five years ago I could have said Butler is the 1st or 2nd best program in America by doing that.
The problem for UM is consistency and our dark age was darker than many. From 1998-1999 to 2008-2009 UM never once made the top 20. Not one single week in a decade.
If elite means consistent performance in the NCAA tournament, that answers the question of who's elite pretty clearly.
you can basically take the top 12 (through UCLA) and throw out Wisc as they haven't won a championship in that stretch and you have one pretty clear group of "elite"
hasn't won a NC during that stretch. In fact, Arizona has only made one FF appearance during that stretch and that was way back in 2001.
any analysis that heavily weighs the post-Martin scandal era will have us looking awful.
If you look at UM before the Martin scandal and now with the Beilein revival, we're certainly more formidable than this chart would suggest.
"That guy, Danny, was Mitch Kumpstein, my roommate."
March 30th, 2015 at 12:56 PM ^
IMO you need 2/3 things below to make a long tourney run.
In our tourney runs we've always had a strong backcourt which is a must.
IMO JB teams have never been great rebounding teams. Outside of McGary there's never been a solid big. This team will always struggle if the 3s don't go. A big can get you better looks on the block and better shots from the perimeter.
You have to be an elite team defensively. On and off ball.
with 6'8" Morgan who was not a great rebounder.
IMO-Elite 8 isnt that great..
March 30th, 2015 at 12:59 PM ^
Recruit better. I love JB and his staff but they absolutely need to pick it up on the recruiting trail. We need to be landing 1-2 top 50 guys every year while continuing our success with the 50-200 types.
last 2 or 3 years? Seems like we are trending.
March 30th, 2015 at 10:26 PM ^
if JB can land Brown or Wagner in 2015 that trend continues; 4 years in a row with at least one top 50 type player. 2016 looks like a pretty good bet too.
To be elite we need to make sure we have a young coach groomed who will take over and continue what we have done.
If we had the same success we've had over the last 3-4 years (combined with a decreased frequency in off years), and expand that over 10 or 20 years (ideally with a championship mixed in), then we'd be considered elite again at some point at the end of that span of 20 years.
There are only 9 schools with more Final 4 appearances than Michigan
There are only 6 schools with more final game appearances than Michigan.
It's success has been long-term and sustained, with Final game appearances in 5 of the last 6 decades. Only a handful of programs have done that.
Other than a 10-year period of relative mediocrity from 97-07 (during which Michigan still won a Big10 tournament title and a NIT title), Michigan has been a elite program in basketball for the past 50+ years.
It does not need to become an elite program. It is an elite program. It needs to sustain that status, and is clearly doing so.
For Michigan to be an elite program we would need to recruit the top in-state talent and consistently grab the talent that goes to Izzo. Derrick Walton was the only Michigan player on the 2014-15 roster. If you look through history it is rare that Michigan has had a top program when MSU has been better than mediocre and vice versa. The Izzo success was built upon the explotation of the malaise in the Michigan program folloiwng the Mateen Cleaves recruiting fiasco. Izzo was an NIT coach before then.
Unless we reduce the Sparty profile and dominite recuiting in-state, I think we will have competitive teams under the current approach and will compete for championships on occasions but not elite teams on a regular basis like Kentucky, Duke or Kansas.
March 30th, 2015 at 10:29 PM ^
the talent in michigan has been down this millenium. that's why JB has gotten more recruits from indiana than even michigan.
Is it by final 4's or Championships. I would say if you are defining it by how many final 4's you go to then MSU is elite. However if you are going to define it by multiple championships, MSU has won the same amount of Nat'l championships that UM has in the last 26 years.... so in that sense I dont think you define them as elite. Izzo has the same # of championships as Tubby Smith and Steve Fisher. Personally, I think you are elite when you win multiple Nat'l championships. So I would define elite currently as Duke, N.Carolina, Florida, and probably Kentucky after this year.
UConn has won 4 national championships - 1999, 2004, 2011 and 2014. Since their first title in 1999, they've won more NC's then any other men's program.
forgot about the Huskies. They should be in there.
We need Trey back...oh right.
This is tangential, but I disagree with including Georgia on that list. Auburn will always be second fiddle to 'Bama, but Georgia has no excuse for not competing on 'Bama's level. They have the resources, the tradition, and the recruiting base to be competing for national championships, but Richt's teams have been perennial underachievers.
The trajectory of the program was trending much higher if it weren't for the unexpected early departures of so many of our key players.
One thing that MSU has done a great job of is finding elite players at the high school level whose games translate well to college but are not necessarily guys who are coveted by NBA types. These are the kind of players who tend to stay all 4 years and provides a great deal of experience and continuity to their program. Guys like Kalin Lucas, Keith Appling, Adrien Payne, Draymond Green, Brendan Dawson, Denzel Valentine were all 4/5 star kids who stuck around in college all 4 years.
Unfortunately for us our best players recently have left after 2 years and the ones that have stuck around are better suited as reserves.
I heard on the radio today that Isiah Thomas was probably the only truly great NBA player Bobby Knight turned out.
Know what you are and know what you are not (and will likely never be):
Michigan will never be a Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, etc. The history of sustained success, overall fan support, and the culture of those programs that have transcended generations is just not there for Michigan. Anyone expecting Michigan to compete year in and year out with those schools for top-10 recruits is outside their mind.
However, if you want to go down that road and talk about acheiving that status, its all about winning. Win big games on big stages. And its got to be in the tournament. Winning conference titles is great and all, but if you don't make big splashes in the tourament, or if you're a perennial early exit in the tournament, you're not elite. You talk about the greatest basketball moments of all time? The moments that truly define teams? They're in the tournament.
Sadly, this is why MSU is considered an elite basketball school. They can underacheive all they want in the regular season, but when they get to March, some light just turns on and they hit an extra gear.
History, legacies, champions, all that stuff, its all formed in March. Win the big games, make Final Fours, win national titles.
Each team you listed we beat between the late 80s and mid-to-late 90s. I think people got sidetracked with the Ellerbe/Amaker years and assumed that's how it was before the 1989 season. If not for having to vacate wins and those dark Ellerbe/Amaker years, we would still have more wins and a higher winning percentage than Sparty and probably OSU as well. And those schools have played basketball longer than us.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think 2001-2010 was the first decade where we didn't play for a national title since the 50s. Not just Final Four, but the championship game. We're not the same name school as UNC or Kentucky, but I also believe we're not that far off from competing for those top-10 players either.
I think Beilein is allowed a down year after winning the conference outright last year and getting to the Elite 8. Particularly with his NBA-first rounder and starting PG hurt most of the year.
considering we were more than a long shot to make the tourny even before the injuries.
I would say Michigan needs to start landing more recruits in the 100-25 range, players who are good but not 1 and done types. Beilein runs a complicated system that freshmen tend to struggle with at first and isn't condusive to going pro after 1 year. But as we've seen with players like Stauskas and Burke, there's a pretty big payoff to staying 2 years and going through the program when you have the requisite work ethic and ability. I don't see any way that Michigan becomes a Kentucky or Duke, but being a team like MSU except with faster development seems like a nice ceiling, as long as the coaches can keep bringing in enough recruits for the early exits.
Between 1985 and 1998 Michigan made the tourney every year but 2. This included 3 Title games winning 1 and a regional final loss. They were 26-11 in the tourney over this span. There were also title runs in the 60s and 70s.
Yes the Martin scandal happened, but is that anything more outrageous than the bagmen of today?
Id say Michigan is an elite basketball school which has been hibernating due to the Martin thing. We are coming out of it now and will resume our place just below the true bluebloods that include Indiana, UCLA, Duke, Kansas, NC and Kentucky.
Hire Izzo. Too soon?
I would rather the state get better at producing football talent
The population of Detroit was much greater back in the 80s.
In 1980 is it 1.2M, in 1990 1M. I believe last count it was 750Kish (could be less since last i looked). You've lost 1/3rd+ of your people in 35 years.
It is just a #s game. Of every X # of kids you have Y # of NCAA Div 1 prospects. And of that Z are Big 10 worthy. If you reduce Z by 33% then the rest are going to fall by definition unless there is an Indiana like focus on basketball. Which is not happening. Give up this dream.
As a Spartan fan, I normally stay out of the conversations, but I'll throw my .02 into this one. I don't think MSU has an elite program--I think we have an elite coach. Jud Heathcote was an excellent coach who did a lot with limited talent. He got lucky with some recruits: Earvin Johnson, Steve Smith, Scott Skiles. For the most part, though, he had a solid--not great--program.
Izzo has taken MSU to a new level. We'll see if MSU stays there once he's gone. To me, it's not so much elite programs as elite coaches. 25 years ago, who could have seen UCLA becoming irrelevant (memo to UCLA, if you look down the bench and see Steve Alford as your coach, you're become irrelevant)? Look at Indiana without Knight (memo to Indiana, if you thought Mike Davis was a wack-job...).
So, the point when you find an elite program, look at the coach. Lastly, I think far too many at MSU take Tom Izzo for granted. To do what Izzo had done, with the resources available to him, I'd put him in the top 10 college coaches of all time.
1. Get someone you trust to go undercover as a booster for your instate rival. (Ed Martin)
2. Make sure said booster is very convincing so that at least one player will take money.
3. Send in a silent commit on a "recruiting" visit to purposely flip an SUV. (Mateen Cleaves)
4. ?????
5. Profit