Michigan has now produced more 1st round NBA Draft picks than any other program in the B1G

Submitted by Maizen on

I really hope JB can parlay that 2013 class into some more recruiting success.

Gentleman Squirrels

June 24th, 2016 at 10:55 AM ^

As someone who is young and only started following Michigan basketball with the 2010 team, it's astounding how much history is in this program! Can't even imagine all the great teams to have played here. Hope Beilein can bring that magic of the 2010-2014 seasons back. When LeVert was drafted I realized that the 2012 team had 5 first rounders and a second rounder playing. Holy crap!

Lie-Cheat-Steal

June 24th, 2016 at 11:33 AM ^

and the rollover jeep, a lot of the MSU success over the past 20 years would have been skewed towards UM.  

Izzo is a great coach and deserves credit for building the most consistent B1G team over the past 2 decades, but let's not pretend like he didn't get a huge break from our own self immolation.

uncle leo

June 24th, 2016 at 6:45 PM ^

Massively from complete incompetence with MSU football coaching.

That's the way of sports. You worry about your shit, and if the guys around you suck, oh well. If everything was in a vacuum and every coach was good, these arguments couldn't exist.

bronxblue

June 24th, 2016 at 11:34 AM ^

It's got a lot of history, but it's also been a program with a maddeningly inability to remain elite for extended periods of time.  Beilein has probably brought the most consistent performance to this program since the early 90s, and we all remember how the Fisher era ended.

But yeah, there has been a good amount of talent that walked through A2.

DCGrad

June 24th, 2016 at 11:10 AM ^

Michigan has the most picks total and the most first round. The column says "first 2 rounds" which includes the first round picks. You don't add the last two columns together because you're double counting first round picks.

copacetic

June 24th, 2016 at 11:32 AM ^

Ok I was confused by this chart, since the draft is now only 2 rounds the totals weren't adding up. But,


In the early years of the draft, teams would select players until they ran out of prospects. The 1960 and 1968 drafts went 21 rounds. By 1974, it had stabilized to 10 rounds, which held up until 1985, when the draft was shortened to seven rounds. By agreement with the National Basketball Players Association, the drafts from 1989 onward have been limited to two rounds, which gives undrafted players the chance to try out for any team.[2]



 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_draft

Maceo24

June 24th, 2016 at 3:13 PM ^

There is a lot of double counting in this chart.  First two rounds includes round 1 picks, so UM has had 9 2nd round picks, not 33.  Then, you can take into account that there used to be more rounds and that is where the total comes from.

JayMo4

June 24th, 2016 at 11:18 AM ^

This is one more statistic indicating that Michigan is not the historically mediocre program some of our fans want to (for god knows what reason why) insist that we are.

Look at the number of times we've made the final four and/or championship game and not cashed in.  Then look at how many titles each program has won.  Sure, we're well behind UCLA and Kentucky.  But if just two or three games go a little differently, we're talked about in the same breath as North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, UConn....  Kansas only has three titles all time.  Louisville has three, and if we'd won that game a couple years back we'd have the same number (2) as they would.  Sparty has two - only one more than us - and I constantly hear how unrealistic it is for us to expect to ever be as consistently good as they are.  I guess we can't compete with their money, fan and alumni base, facilities, recruiting reach, brand, and tv coverage.  Oh wait, we're on par or ahead of them in all of those categories.  So what gives?

Syracuse, Arizona, Georgetown, Maryland all have one title apiece.  But these are "basketball schools" and we aren't, so we shouldn't have high expectations.  That's what you always hear from the skeptics.  I don't know why so many of us set the bar so low.  I guess the post Fab Five era broke everyone's spirit.  That, or it gave us amnesia about our program.

 

Apologies for the rant.  I only want to win!

bronxblue

June 24th, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^

Nobody says that UM can't compete with those other programs, only that they haven't done so consistently for decades.  And I know everyone trots out Fisher and says either "see, UM can be elite consistently" or "everyone else is/was doing it, UM just got caught", but UM has been an historically good program, just not an elite one.  And basing it purely on titles isn't necessarily fair; in a bunch of single-game elimination tournaments, lots of crazy things can happen.  Hell, UConn's got a couple of titles because of it.

I don't know people who still think Maryland or Georgetown are elite programs, and UM should be able to compete with them more years than not.  But UNC and Duke have been consistent winners for most of thier recent basketball existence.  Maybe if UM can compete for titles, finished ranked most years, and recruit well for a decade or two, they'll be in that conversation.  But they haven't, and that sustained success without getting busted has been a problem for years now.  It isn't some terrible pox on UM or something they can't remedy, but people keep ranting about how they should be better but fail to provide evidence of how UM gets better and why (outside of maybe Freider and now Beilein) it hasn't consistently happened without some bad consequences.

JayMo4

June 24th, 2016 at 12:06 PM ^

I'd agree with most of that, save that first sentence:  Nobody says UM can't compete with those other programs.

I don't know how many forum discussions you've gotten into when basketball comes up.  But I've posted here, and over the years at GBW, MLive, UMHoops, etc and I've heard plenty of that.  Don't get me wrong, I've also heard your point made (We probably could, but we haven't been able to do it often enough.)  But I've heard a lot of people talk about Michigan basketball like we may as well be Northwestern or Penn State.  I just like to remind those of us that don't know our history that well that we're actually much closer to being North Carolina or Kansas than we are to being Iowa or Nebraska, and that is in spite of the fact that the athletic department historically hasn't given the basketball program as much support as it you might expect for a program with our resources and upside.

I do believe that this is changing, and we now have an AD that is going to emphasize the basketball program and set the bar high.  So I am optimistic.  I hope that everyone else will get over their pessimism and jump onboard.

bronxblue

June 24th, 2016 at 12:43 PM ^

Oh, I've gotten into those same debates, both here and elsewhere.  Got into one on a reddit thread that went the way reddit threads do.

I think we can be very good, maybe even sometimes elite.  But UM has never really done that consistently during the lifetime of most fans.  In the lifetime of most 20-year-olds, UM was mostly blah under Ellerbe and Amaker and recently had a slight uptick with Beilein.  But those downbeats hurt your staying power.  You look at UNC and KU, and those teams have been consistent for decades now.  KU has missed the tourney one time since 1984, and more often than not finished in the top 10; UNC missed it 3 times since the late 70s, but also won 4 titles and had the greatest player in the history of the game on their squad.  That's what kills UM; people point at these periods when UM was really good, but it was in the 60s and 70s.  The 90s (if Fisher had kept the program clean) could have been the continuation of a great start by Frieder, but it fizzled out and the program has struggled recapturing that.  

That's why I think Beilein is a better coach than anyone gives him credit here; he'll get UM and its fans to expect tourney appearances and maybe a decent run here or there, so that the next guy who takes over (again, you need a good hire) can push them up.  It'll also help if MSU trends down after Izzo, as that will help with recruiting.

Lanknows

June 24th, 2016 at 2:47 PM ^

you're never going to be happy.

If you're expecting a team that ranks in the top 5-15 over a longer period -- that is acheivable.  Beilein put the program on that path.  The question is if the last 2 years are an injury-induced anomoly (a momentery stumble) or the sign of weaknesses (recruiting, defense) that necessitate a coaching change.

To me, the risks of a transition are too high, Beilein's done too much good to be on the hot seat, and I'd rather find a Heathcote-Izzo transition (e.g., Billy Donlan) after a few years.  More years if things go well, fewer if the next 2-3 years find M mired in mediocrity rather than competing for Big Ten titles and making a deep tourney runs or two.

IMO - the future is very bright, but you can't just magically get the kind of tradition and reputation that the blue bloods have.  It takes extraordinary once-in-a-generation coaches (and plenty of good luck) to get there.  Beilein's the best chance we have.

Maizen

June 24th, 2016 at 12:18 PM ^

The problem with this is that college basketball is almost entirely coach dependent. It really has little to do with the "program". For example do people realize Duke was a basketball doormat save for a brief period in the 60's until Coach K? They had zero national titles before 1990. You can say similar things about Syracuse before Boeheim, MSU before Izzo (sans 79), UConn before Calhoun, and on down the line.

The only thing keeping Michigan from being considered a basketball blueblood is the fact they are 1-5 in national title games. The only programs with more national title game appearances are UCLA, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, and UNC. That's it. 

It's all about the coach you have and his ability to recruit. Tubby Smith and Billy Gillispie never recruited anywhere close to the level Calipari is right now at UK. Mike Davis was a bust at IU. Matt Dougherty at UNC failed. In fact, we can look at our football program for evidence of this as well. Michigan hoops has everything they need in place to be a powerhouse. No reason we shouldn't be getting 5 star players every year. 

bronxblue

June 24th, 2016 at 12:51 PM ^

The difference between those programs isn't the titles; it's the lack of consistent finishes for nearly a decade.  Again, Duke might have won it's first title in 1990, but it played for a title in '77 and after a couple of early bumps under Coach K have basically been a top-10 team for about 30 years.  Maybe that falls on coaches, maybe not.  MSU had some success under Heathcote, and even at the end of his tenure had made the tourney semi-consistently.  What UM needs to do is take the base created by Beilein and hire someone who can create a dominant run; they've never quite done that in their history, which is why they aren't considered an elite program.  So yes, I agree to an extent it's with coaching, but it's also simply not stumbling over yourself after a decent start.  Beilein isn't probably the guy who leads UM to a title, but they can't pull another Ellerbe or (retroactively) Fisher who stalls out the success or, at the bare minimum, fails to keep it in neutral.  

TrueBlue2003

June 24th, 2016 at 1:02 PM ^

You freely admit program doesn't mean much in basketball, which is mostly correct.  So why would we deserve 5 stars every year over any other program? Only if we have a coach that can consistently recruit 5 stars.  And we don't.  So that's the reason we shouldn't and aren't getting 5 stars every year.  Pretty simple.

We could try to hire a coach that can.  And we can offer more money than many other programs, but that's the primary institutional advantage we have. And to use your examples of Tubby, Gillispie, etc. it's not a gaurantee you'll be great with some five stars.  You have to be a great coach as well.  There aren't many guys that can recruit and coach at a high level.

Lanknows

June 24th, 2016 at 2:57 PM ^

There are bluebloods in football like ND that roll on regardless of coach - as goes for Kentucky and Kansas in basketball.

The Calipari argument is like a Harbaugh argument, but Michigan is Bo's program.

MSU won national title and was mediocre for decades until Dantoni - same as Izzo. Belloti and Kelly made Oregon into a powerhouse just like Coack K made Duke into a powerhouse.  Jimmy Johnson - Miami.

Program prestige is one factor. Coaching is another.  Both matter in football and in basketball.

bringthewood

June 24th, 2016 at 12:50 PM ^

What is so painful is that Ed Martin gave/loaned money to players from Detroit. He paid players that went to several Big Ten schools - I believe Iowa, Minn and maybe Ill. But because he was considered a booster at Michigan - that was the issue. Also Michigan choose to admit guilt and to not defend themselves. He was not "go to Michigan and I will pay you" he loaned/gave money to many Detroit/Michigan area players. He also paid players that went outside of the B1G including Syracuse. But none of these schools admitted any wrong doing so no penalties.

Was Michigan culpable, absolutely. Did they deserve some punishment, sure. Was Ed Martin directing players to Michigan, no. Did other schools deserve punishment from the Ed Martin scandal, yes.

Lanknows

June 24th, 2016 at 2:40 PM ^

It's unfortunate that Michigan went down for something that seems far less nefarious as the going on at UNC, OSU, Baylor, Miami, Ole Miss, etc.

That said, they really didn't have a great defense given that Martin was indeed a Michigan fan who got special priveleges. He 'helped' a lot of Detroit kids, many who went elsewhere, but he was around AA far more than those other places and I think that by time Bullock and Traylor were around campus it looked far less innocent than it was with the Fab 5.  Bullock had no ties to Detroit but was still paid -- which, paired with getting his while Michigan was already under investigation, make him the biggest villain in all this for many M fans.

Oh and BTW, if you think that Martin didn't go to football games, 'help' football players, or that there weren't people like Martin around the football program you are kidding yourself.  The 'loaner' car scam has been around forever, all over the country, AA no exception.