MSU's Brandan Kearney is transferring
Tom Izzo has announced that sophomore SF Brandan Kearney is transferring from the MSU program. He was a 3-star from Detroit Southeastern and was considered to be a key piece down the road for the Spartans.
Looks like Izzo will need to scratch even harder to fill a one- or two-man class for next year.
Unfortunately, the only link currently available is from the Freep:
http://www.freep.com/article/20121228/SPORTS07/121228038/michigan-state…
December 28th, 2012 at 1:19 PM ^
December 28th, 2012 at 1:20 PM ^
December 28th, 2012 at 1:22 PM ^
Went to middle school with Kearney before he moved back to the DPS, hope all goes well for him.
December 28th, 2012 at 1:32 PM ^
clearly see the writing on the wall. I don't think anyone really thought he was a "key piece" to this team. He can defend, but that is about all he can do. With Harris and Valentine coming into the program it was pretty clear that Izzo was going to be giving them the minutes.
Remember State only loses Nix next year, so the fact that they may not have recruit in the 13 class probably isn't a big deal to them.
Bottom line, don't cry for Izzo...lol
December 28th, 2012 at 1:33 PM ^
This puts them in a bad spot. They're going to have to either play Byrd at the 3 again (even though he's been terrible), or move Dawson to the three and play 2 bigs (which didn't work very well early in the season).
December 28th, 2012 at 1:45 PM ^
Kearney has had ZERO impact on any single game he has ever played in for State. He comes in, plays D for 10 mins and is out. State has been playing a lot of 3 guard sets with Dawson at the 4 spot. They need shooting, Kearney couldn't provide that anyways. Kearney is a 2, they have plenty of 2's better than him. Kearney leaving doesn't create any holes for that squad.
You're right on Byrd though, kid is worthless if he can't hit a shot. He's a horrible defender, one of the worst in the B10 and turns the ball over 1/2 x he touches it.
December 28th, 2012 at 1:55 PM ^
Kearney has been playing 17 minutes a game for them, and is a useful defender. He's been a crap offensive player, but Byrd has been A. worse and B. not a good defender. As TOC said, without Kearney, they have 4 guys for 3 spots on the floor, which isn't a great situation, and will probably force them to play Payne and Nix together more often, even though Izzo said he doesn't want to do it anymore because it wasn't effective.
December 28th, 2012 at 2:12 PM ^
Izzo disgarees with you.
"Kearney, right now, is doing everything I like,'' said Izzo, whose 19th-ranked Spartans improved to 9-2 heading into their Tuesday night game at Bowling Green (7 p.m., ESPNU).
"Kearney has been the steadiest and best player at playing his role,'' Izzo said, asked to comment further on the 6-foot-5 sophomore wing.
"He is to the point that if he gets an open shot, he hits it,'' Izzo said. "He's the best at going to the offensive board, and he's pretty solid defensively.''
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2012/12/michigan_state_coach_to…
December 28th, 2012 at 2:25 PM ^
The word "role" is key here; my guess is that Kearney doesn't want to be a role player for Tom Izzo or anybody else.
Everybody wins here: Kearney can transfer to a mid-major and try to be a star, while we can laugh at Tom Izzo, who is obviously losing a bit more of his mojo (and market value) with each passing year.
Soon, Izzo will be exposed for what he is: a slightly above-average coach who used Michigan's troubles to dominate once-fertile Michigan recruiting for ten years, but isn't all that great when he plays on a level playing field.
December 28th, 2012 at 2:28 PM ^
Izzo is a great coach. I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise. He's petulant and has a napoleon complex like nobody's business, but he's an unbelievable basketball coach.
Have people forgotten that MSU was a #1 seed literally last year?
December 28th, 2012 at 2:59 PM ^
December 28th, 2012 at 3:59 PM ^
The thing that people forget most about Izzo is not that he has brought State to the level they are at while Michigan floundered over the same time period (which certainly played a part in MSU's dominance), but that he was HANDED the reigns of the program from Jud Heathcote, and it's not like Heathcote was some slouch of a coach that left a bare cupboard. Izzo had the luxury of taking over a good program for which he had already been an assistant with for 12(!) years. Heathcote made the NCAA Tournament five of his last six years at MSU before retiring and had his team in the top three in the Big Ten in four of those years. Izzo then proceeded to miss the Big Dance his first two years leading the program.
Tom Izzo is a solid coach and a very good recruiter, but give me the choice between him and Beilein and I will take the latter every day of the week, no question. And I have said this since the day we hired Beilein. It's not really fair to compare them by record, you have to go off what you see on the court and how well each can coach a team with varying levels of talent.
December 28th, 2012 at 6:24 PM ^
December 28th, 2012 at 6:41 PM ^
December 29th, 2012 at 12:00 AM ^
Agree with most of your comments, but I question if he's as great of a guy as you think. He regularly throws players under the bus in the media and tends to go Bobby Knight on them during games. I would never send my son* to play for Izzo, even if he could develop talent for the next level.
* Elmer Jr doesn't have much game, so this is purely hypothetical :)
December 28th, 2012 at 11:45 PM ^
much less than a better coach. When a player transfers away from Michigan (because he obviously feels that is the best decision for his life), Coach Beilein publicly wishes him well.
Izzo on the other hand cannot ever get tired of hearing his own voice. Though he similarly wishes Kearney well, he also calls his transfer a "strange decision."
Sorry, but the word "strange" can't take on anything remotely positive in that context. Izzo seems like such a narcisistic crybaby.
It's hilarious that so many fans treat him like a god, because he is not nearly as good as advertised.
December 28th, 2012 at 11:46 PM ^
is out there. It's either play or get played.
December 28th, 2012 at 2:58 PM ^
I can argue...He's not a "great" coach. He's a good coach (which is better than Tater's "slightly above average"). We're really just splitting hairs, but when you look at the slew of 5* players that Izzo brought in...all of which came after the Explorer flipped and Cleaves landed in East Lansing...his record is what it should be (at a minimum).
Last year, as a #1 seed, State barely escaped to the Sweet 16 (where they lost). The year prior, they were pre-season top 5 and tumbled to the bubble before eeking into the tourney. When we hired Brian Ellerbe, we basically gave Izzo his resume. He was then able to get top Michigan recruits, leading to top national recruits. None of that would have happened without Michigan's decision to become irrelevant in basketball. Izzo is a "good" (not "great") coach who has done well because he's had exceptional talent.
December 28th, 2012 at 3:10 PM ^
and won 7 Big 10 titles in 17 years. Jim Boeheim, by comparison, has been to 3 Final Fours and won 9 conference titles in like 36 years.
Also, getting great talent is probably the biggest part of a college BBall coach's job. By that logic, Calipari isn't a good coach because he has a billion 5 stars. Recruiting is one of the things that makes a coach great.
December 28th, 2012 at 3:27 PM ^
Coaches are often thought of as being "great recruiters" and/or "great coaches". I'll give you that Izzo is a "great" recruiter, but we'll see how much longer that holds true.
To make your point, it looks like you've confused things a bit. I said Izzo is a "good" coach but you talk (with reference to Calipari) as if I said the opposite. To keep the comparison equivalent, is Calipari a "great" coach? I don't know, but we'd all agree he's a great recruiter.
Looking at Boeheim, since 2008 (because I'm lazy and didn't deep deeper), he's had one 5* recruit to Izzo's four. That's a huge difference! Would Syracuse have done better with 4 times the 5* kids? Of course. Bottom line, Izzo achieved success when Michigan chose to disappear with Ellerbe. Imagine UNC without competition for recruits from Duke or Auburn football without competition from Alabama.
Again, I'm talking about "good" vs. "great", but if it makes your point to pretend I said the opposite, I'm cool with that as well.
December 28th, 2012 at 3:35 PM ^
n this context, they don't mean "great Xs and Os coach." They mean "coach that wins lots of basketball games." This isn't the pros, where you have a GM making personnel decisions; you can't seperate out recruiting from drawing plays up on a chalkboard. Being a great recruiter (and winning games with those players) makes one a great coach.
In other words: it is a point in the favor of Izzo and Calipari (and Coach K, and Roy Williams, etc.) that they land more 5 star recruits than Boeheim does.
December 28th, 2012 at 3:46 PM ^
Thanks for ignoring the entirey of the point that Izzo is only a "great" recruiter because his primary competition disappeared. Recruiting and coaching are very different beasts. If you doubt me, ask Brad Stevens at Butler.
December 28th, 2012 at 3:56 PM ^
Not sure I buy this. Talent in the state of Michigan has cratered over the course of the last decade, and both Beilein and Izzo are looking to Ohio and Indiana for talent. Izzo's been successful at getting guys out of Indiana that Purdue and Indiana wanted (Gary Harris, Branden Dawson) and guys out of Ohio that OSU wanted (Delvon Roe, Payne). Who was the last in-state 5 star before James Young? Marqueis Gray in 2004?
December 28th, 2012 at 4:09 PM ^
Maybe you're not buying it because you're only looking back to 2004. The Cleaves rollover was in 1996, and that began Izzo's ability to land "big name" recruits. Without Cleaves, he doesn't get other Michigan recruits. Without those recruits, he doesn't get the out-of-state kids. That's the way it works...It's not just about in-state recruiting, but the national recruiting doesn't exist otherwise.
December 28th, 2012 at 4:14 PM ^
and Peedi, Beilein doesn't beat Duke or UCLA, doesn't make the tournament his second year, maybe doesn't land (or keep) Darius Morris, and maybe isn't even still employed at Michigan right now. And if Matta isn't quite so enamored with Shannon Scott, Trey Burke maybe goes to OSU to play with his best friend.
Luck is a part of all things. Izzo has clearly taken great advantage of the opportunities given to him.
December 28th, 2012 at 4:28 PM ^
I don't mean this in an insulting way, but how old are you? Just curious as it seems like you don't have the same feel for the history of these things as I do (being an old man).
That said, you're talking about one-time events and seem not to understand that I'm talking about a 16-year trend that began with one specific incident and the demise of Izzo's main recruiting opponent. I'm not talking about a game here or there. I'm not talking about one or two recruits in a vaccuum (though you'd be interested to know that Manny and Peedi came to and stayed at Michigan because of Mike Jackson...not Amaker and not Beilein).
December 28th, 2012 at 4:31 PM ^
to have watched the Fab Five live and on TV, and to distinctly remember the news reports announcing the Ed Martin fiasco. I fully understand the history of Michigan and MSU basketball. I just don't see what that has to do with whether or not Izzo is a good coach. Taking advantage of luck is one of the things that makes peopel successful.
December 28th, 2012 at 4:44 PM ^
Well, youngin', I'm old enough to have entered Michigan as a freshman with those guys and to know many of the folks in the local basketball scene of that era. You can say Izzo took advantage of luck (which is entirely true), but name another coach to have had so much luck as to have his rival disappear. Luck is an unexpectedly easy path to the Final 4 (and Izzo has seen some of that). Luck is a bad call here or there. Luck is an opponent missing a big free throw. There's luck, and then there's "holy shit...Michigan hired Ellerbe???"
December 28th, 2012 at 6:26 PM ^
December 28th, 2012 at 6:45 PM ^
things that weren't said include, Izzo got "an easy path every year" and that he "lucked into 6 Final Fours". Thanks for playing.
December 28th, 2012 at 7:33 PM ^
December 28th, 2012 at 4:45 PM ^
I don't think you can make a comparison between a couple of individual recruiting outcomes and an NCAA scandal that started a chain reaction of bad events (firing Fisher, hiring Ellerbe, hiring Amaker, the fans staying away, not investing in facilities) that crippled us for a decade. I think Izzo is a good coach, but there's no denying that he was incredibly fortunate for all that to happen right when he was trying to build a program.
Also, Beilein's history suggests he'd have gotten by even if he hadn't inherited those guys. He didn't recruit any blue-chippers at WVU.
December 28th, 2012 at 6:24 PM ^
December 28th, 2012 at 3:28 PM ^
No, he is a great coach. If coach B wins a National title with us and takes us to 6 final fours are you going to call him a good coach? Let's not be hypocrites.
December 28th, 2012 at 3:44 PM ^
I think Izzo's a very good coach, but that comparison is apples and oranges. Izzo had the luxury of building his program at a time when ours imploded. If the rollover had never happened and the Ed Martin scandal never come to light, I'm not sure how good Izzo would have done. Recruiting for him obviously would have been a lot tougher than it was. He basically had his choice of the state's top players for a good decade.
Beilein, conversely, has had to build Michigan up from the rubble at a time when MSU had been the top dog in the state for a decade. I think Beilein had the more challenging task when he took over. He has done an incredible job.
In terms of pure Xs and Os, I think Beilein has the edge (though not a huge one). Izzo's teams play excellent defense and always dominate the glass, but I don't feel their offense is as good as it could be. Big men especially seem a little lost in their offense.
December 28th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^
Yup. 100%. I wonder if the folks that talk about the "great" Izzo even know the history of his recruiting success and it's very specific origin in our downfall.
When talking about a "great" coach, records matter a ton, but great coaches make great players. Izzo's players don't seem to improve much, but Beilein's get much better. On the flip side, there's Tommy Amaker, whose players didn't improve a drop (if at all).
December 28th, 2012 at 4:04 PM ^
Whether they do it the John Beilein way (identify undervalued talent and coach it up) or the Calipari way (get every great player you want because you know Worldwide Wes) is pretty much irrelevant.
Edit: "irrelevant" from a "are they a great coach" perspective, not from a moral/"would I want this guy coaching my team" perspective. Calipari's a great coach, but I wouldn't want him anywhere near my team.
December 28th, 2012 at 5:33 PM ^
December 28th, 2012 at 6:47 PM ^
Thanks, sweetie.
December 28th, 2012 at 7:05 PM ^
You are extremely transparent. Negatively moderating all dissenting opinions makes you hilariously petty for your old age. You were intolerable with the Rich Rod discussions and it looks like basketball is no different. I'd say grow up but there is something about old dogs and new tricks.
December 29th, 2012 at 9:21 AM ^
You're too kind...and wrong, but thanks for the insults. There's something about assuming...but I'm too old to remember the whole phrase.
December 28th, 2012 at 6:32 PM ^
December 28th, 2012 at 11:59 PM ^
...Beilein is better than Izzo is more than credible. You're arbitrary bar of the first weekend is useless. Beilein has proven his chops before Michigan and at Michigan.
Izzo coaches a good strategy for tournaments. That does not mean he efficiently or fully develops the individual talent he recruits. That does not mean he is a great regular season coach. That does not mean he handles refs with class or character. That does not mean he handles his players' with class or character. That does not mean he handles the media with class or character.
Izzo is great at advancing deep into the tournament. He has one national championship. Good for him. I heard it takes some luck to win one of those.
Beilein is winner, a better man, a better coach. If you understand basketball, you can see it in the way his teams play. And that is not just in regards to this year's highly ranked team.
December 29th, 2012 at 12:14 AM ^
December 29th, 2012 at 12:38 AM ^
the guy who tells people what they should believe. People tell him what they really believe, and the guy refuses to be wrong and continues trying to convince people that what they believe is actually wrong--"in fact."
Here, you basically tell me to follow the "non-arbitrary" bar set (by whom?) talking heads on ESPN or wherever.
You then write far too many words to argue that it's all about the # of times a coach wins and whether he wins championships.
Yet strangely enough, here you post on mgoblog praising Coach Beilein for win #650 as a head coach: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/congratulations-coach-beilein-win-650
Somewhere in there I'm sure it's stated that he won a B1G title in his short time as Michigan's head coach. In comparison, Izzo as a head coach has 422 wins.
So is it credible and ok for me to believe Beilein is a better coach than Izzo before Beilein at Michigan gets out of the first weekend? Incidentally, he did this already at WVU. He also has the record for most programs taken to the NCAA tournament.
Rationalize your way out of that one so that you can once again "not be wrong." You can't resist, because you're "that guy."
December 29th, 2012 at 12:59 AM ^
December 29th, 2012 at 5:16 AM ^
double post; redundant.
December 29th, 2012 at 5:17 AM ^
I'm stating facts about both Izzo and Beilein to support my belief that Beilein is a better coach. I'm also using those facts to show that the belief is credible.
In contrast, you're stating different facts and telling others what is acceptable to believe.
I've not stated that Izzo is a bad coach. He is a good coach. I haven't seen any comment here stating otherwise. I merely state with my comments that I believe Beilein is a better coach. You can't win this argument no matter how much you want to.
Another difference between us is my preference for brevity that you seem to lack. With words, less is more.
December 29th, 2012 at 2:15 PM ^
December 29th, 2012 at 7:21 AM ^
I love Coach Beilein and think he is the perfect coach for our team but to say he has accomplished more than Izzo is just nonsense. Izzo has had his fair share of talent and he has maximized it to some degree. 6 Final 4's is nothing to gripe at, he is rightfully recognized as one of the best basketball coaches in the country. Now having said all that it will be very interesting the next few years to see what Coach B can do with the type of talent that Izzo has had for the past decade.