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-...
Izzo has hit a dry spell
He gone.
He gone.
Went to middle school with
Went to middle school with Kearney before he moved back to the DPS, hope all goes well for him.
Kearney could-
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
O-Fo-Sho
Nah
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).
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.
Do you watch State?
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.
O-Fo-Sho
Yes, I've watched State plenty
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.
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.
Izzo disgarees with
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_tom...
Every time an MGoBoard poster complains about a thread topic, God kills a baby panda.
"Role?"
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.
This...is insane
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?
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.
While Izzo is a great coach,
While Izzo is a great coach, he has had his pick of anyone he wanted from the state of Michigan and to a lesser extent the Midwest for a good 15 years. The Midwest, especially Michigan is an extremely fertile recruiting area for basketball (Football is a different story). Even though he'll never admit it publicly, the emergence of UM basketball is the absolute worst thing that could ever happen to MSU. And here we are.
Yeah I know it's extremely early to call UM the dominant program in the state but that's exactly where we're headed. Better facilities (finally), Better Brand, Great Coach and a Great Team again. I've said this before but anyone over the age of 30 knows who the real basketball program in this state is. I can't believe it's taken this long but the wait is finally over.
I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right?
Izzo
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.
Believe
Beilein
Izzo can't coach upper echelon talent
I've argued with my friends about this. I think izzo is a great person and good coach. If I had a son being receuited I'd think sending him off to Izzo for four years would be a good thing.
If I had a son that had legitimate NBA talent I would never send him to izzo. When has izzo ever taken a great talent and helped him actually live up to it? The only player I can think of is Zach Randolph by he was just flat out good and a product of himself. Izzo has won with four year players who he gets to buy into tough defense and just enough offense to get by. Year after year the problem with Michigan state is not their defense or rebounding, but their offense. He can't coach the offensive end.
I always make the argument that his team with Lucas and summers was his most talented. When thy got to the final four he struggled with that team early in the year because he kept trying to get his players to buy into whatever his offensive concept is. They went on a run because his players just decided to open it up. Once it got to the big ten tournament and the tournament he couldn't bench star players to make an example and he just had to let them go and they won. The next year he tried to reel hose players back in and t imploded, just look at summers career.
With the high school kids going to school for st least one year, and them now being players that can lead a team for that one year, izzo is losing ground. A guy like Thad Matta had really adapted to and it and reloads every year and knows how to coach talent.
Look at Kentucky last year. Do you think they win the national championship if izzo is their coach? Do you hunk they even sniff the final four? Do you think calipari wins the national championship coaching the Lucas/summers team?
I feel bad for Brandon Dawson just watching a guy that will never develop at state.
And Zach Randolph was only at
And Zach Randolph was only at State for a year if I recall correctly.
I got the shotgun. You got the briefcase. It's all in the game though, right?
Agree with most of your
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 :)
Beilein is just a better man
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.
Every man at some point is gonna lose a battle. He's gonna fight and he's gonna lose. But what makes him a man, is that in the midst of that battle he does not lose himself. This game is not over, this battle is not over. So let's hear it .
the game
is out there. It's either play or get played.
Every man at some point is gonna lose a battle. He's gonna fight and he's gonna lose. But what makes him a man, is that in the midst of that battle he does not lose himself. This game is not over, this battle is not over. So let's hear it .
I can argue...He's not a
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.
he's been to six 6 Final Fours
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.
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.
Coaches are often thought of
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.
When people say "great coach"
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.
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.
Thanks for ignoring the
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.
Meh
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?
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.
Maybe you're not buying it
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.
And if Amaker doesn't land Manny Harris
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.
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.
I don't mean this in an
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).
I am old enough
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.
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.
Well, youngin', I'm old
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???"
We'll, as someone who was already at Michigan
When the Fab Five decided to come to town as freshmen, I can say he's right- you don't "luck into" 6 Final Fours, or get an easy path every year.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
things that weren't said
things that weren't said include, Izzo got "an easy path every year" and that he "lucked into 6 Final Fours". Thanks for playing.
You said
" Luck is an unexpectedly easy path to the Final 4 (and Izzo has seen some of that)"
"Some", meaning more than once. And otherwise discounting the at least four others. But please, list all the other coaches who have gone to 6 Final Fours under one coach while their rival was down. If all it takes is a lack of competition then schools must be doing it all the time. Heck, Kansas is a bigger name program with no competition in their whole conference who under multiple coaches have only made only 4 Final Fours over the last 20 years. They must be really unlucky.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
I don't think you can make a
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.
You know that Butler
Was out recruiting us up until the last few years, right? It's not like he's dealing with "Hoosiers."
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
No, he is a great coach. If
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.
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.
- Vince Lombardi
I think Izzo's a very good
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.
Yup. 100%. I wonder if the
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).
Great coaches win basketball games
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.
There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter.
You have been insufferable
You have been insufferable throughout this thread. You've made your point over and over again. We all understand that Izzo benefited from a weak Michigan. I don't know or care to know about the "car flip" with Cleaves. The bottom line is that there is no room in the record books for a story.
Omnia mutantur nos et mutamur in illis.
Thanks, sweetie.
Thanks, sweetie.
You are extremely
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.
Omnia mutantur nos et mutamur in illis.
You're too kind...and wrong,
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.
So if the players don't get any better
He must be doing something right to keep winning Tourney games. How about Beilein gets us out of the first weekend of the Big Dance before we start declaring him "better"? We're not exactly stealing recruits of MSU even though we're better now; we're just going after different ones who are equally as good. So us being better isn't going to make MSU worse at this rate. So how he got there doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the corruption didn't blow up in Fisher's face he probably would have gotten Izzo fired, just like it doesn't matter if our program hadn't been shady we might have to go back to Orr for our "glory days."
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
how about this: believing..
...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.
Every man at some point is gonna lose a battle. He's gonna fight and he's gonna lose. But what makes him a man, is that in the midst of that battle he does not lose himself. This game is not over, this battle is not over. So let's hear it .
Here's a non-arbitrary one
When they talk about the great coaches of all time, it's about championships and Final Fours. The rest doesn't matter. No one cares what happens till the Tourney. Conference championships are a nice add on, but guess what? Izzo has those too. You win a lot in the regular season but fizzle in the Tourney, and you're Gene Keady.
The only way that argument becomes at all credible is when Michigan is cutting down the nets in the last game of the season, and has at least had a few more shots. Tough at that age. You can make up any humanitarian of the year awards you want, but history is not going to use that as as measure of a great coach. Bo was a great coach because he won a lot of games the right way. But if he hadn't he'd have been a just guy who got fired.
X's and O's matter. But in college sports recruiting matters more. And no where more so than college basketball. Amazing how many more wins come now that we have better talent. Good for us. But you can't downgrade an Izzo because he's been doing that for awhile. The coach recruits the talent; that's the most important part of his job.
What it means is Izzo wins when it matters and the rest doesn't really matter at all.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
you're "that guy" aren't you?
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."
Every man at some point is gonna lose a battle. He's gonna fight and he's gonna lose. But what makes him a man, is that in the midst of that battle he does not lose himself. This game is not over, this battle is not over. So let's hear it .
Funny, you're the guy who in one swoop
Posted post after post telling everyone why Izzo wasn't really that good as a coach. And then you complain about writing too many words in response to a post of yours more than twice as long as the one you responded to. And you were the one doing in making claims O's what was arbitrary or not. So you might be looking in the mirror, because you're seeing your own reflection.
And far before ESPN people were caring about winners in sports. It's kinda the point of them. To win. Championships, specifically. Everyone who makes a great list without one is always on the "best to never win list", never just "the best."
I don't think acknowledging that Beilein is a very good coach negates Izzos achievements. 650 wins is an accomplishment; of course you fail to mention it took 17 more years to do it. So if Izzo coaches 17 years after Beilein retires, I'm guessing that comparison will not favor you. Likewise pointing out Beilein's one championship doesn't relly help your argument in comparison to Izzo, with 7, and 3 more in the B1G Tourney.
It's not rationalization; it's just cold, hard numbers. And banners. The only rationalization is coming from everyone trying to downgrade Izzo because he coaches in green and white, and not being man enough to admit he's a pretty good coach too who's accomplished more than any coach in Michigan Basketball history. That's not a bad thing; just makes it all the more fun to beat him. You don't have to downgrade him to prop our program up.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
there's a big difference between us that you fail to recognize
double post; redundant.
Every man at some point is gonna lose a battle. He's gonna fight and he's gonna lose. But what makes him a man, is that in the midst of that battle he does not lose himself. This game is not over, this battle is not over. So let's hear it .
there's a big difference between us that you fail to recognize
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.
Every man at some point is gonna lose a battle. He's gonna fight and he's gonna lose. But what makes him a man, is that in the midst of that battle he does not lose himself. This game is not over, this battle is not over. So let's hear it .
No, you are stating your beliefs as facts.
I'm giving you facts that contradict your beliefs, and you're acting like you believe in the tooth fairy, and I can't convince you otherwise. So you're right, I can't win an argument with one who goes on faith, rather than logic.
You've state that Izzo is overrated in this thread. When his accomplishments show otherwise.
The first post you responded to was 116 words. Your reply was 159. My 228 word response was answered with 205 words. So your "brevity" was longer than what you were replying to. (And saying I'm going to stop talking because my fingers are in my ears and I'm not listening doesn't count). So I've at least shown you're as bad at math as you are logic.
"I love him, he's a great coach, he's a great mentor, he's a great friend. He's every single thing you want a college coach to be, and he does it flawlessly." -David Molk
I love Coach Beilein and
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.
Maybe he should call the experts in Ann Arbor for a few tips.