Old John Beilein Article - 2010

Submitted by PeterKlima on

This seems like a perfect opportunity for a history lesson.

As you remember, John Beilein was on the hot seat to start his fourth year at Michigan. 

He had one season of success in his first three years, but that was with players recruited by the former coach.

HIs third year was supposed to be good, but at the begining of 2010 ......

Michigan may very well have been the most underachieving team in the entire nation, and it has now lost its two most talented players.....

Yeah, but what about that NCAA berth, you say? Well, Beilein rode a tandem of stars with very little around them ... and they were both recruited by Amaker. So you have a coach who has only had success based on using two players, and he didn't recruit either one of them.

To start his fourth year, things looked BLEAK.  Article here.

Of course, Michigan is a current Division 1 team which is supposed to be competing in a power conference.

And the coach who was supposed to be turning this program around is entering his fourth season.....

Basically, Beilein is not the answer Michigan thought it had last year at this time. The sooner the administration realizes it, the sooner it can begin to rebuild the program. Again.

Interesting?  And, isnt it supposed to be easier to turn around a baskebtall program quicker (kids play earlier, etc.)?

If you are looking for an example of a football coach who looked lost after three years, look no further than Pat Narduzzi heading into his fourth year:

Pat Narduzzi, Michigan State defensive coordinator: Offense was hardly a problem for the Spartans in 2009. At 29.7 points per game, they ranked second in the Big Ten in scoring. However, the Spartans allowed 26.3 points per game, which ranked in the lower half of the conference. They weren’t much better last season on defense. The root of the problem has been a porous pass defense, one that allowed a league-high 267.6 yards per game. The Spartans have the offense, led by quarterback Kirk Cousins, to make a run at a league title, but questions remain on whether the defense improve enough to alleviate some of the pressure on the offense. If the defense can’t, head coach Mark Dantonio could be looking for a new defensive coordinator.

lbpeley

February 25th, 2014 at 10:41 AM ^

I'm not dogging the OP for his choice of articles. It's just that HP sucks dockey balls (that article is just one of billions of examples) and there actually is/was a fire Pat Narduzzi site. That's funny to me.

umjgheitma

February 25th, 2014 at 10:14 AM ^

that Beilein cemented himself here was the dismantling of VCU in the tourney. Tournament was a little shaky prior to that point. Making it in is good but for a program with a lot of althletic department funds and resources it has to be a staple 7/10 years to do at least that.

jmblue

February 25th, 2014 at 11:33 AM ^

Beilein was not under any kind of pressure entering last year's tournament.  That's crazy talk.

The 2011 season, with the sweep of MSU and demolition of Tennessee in the first round of the tourney, took him off the hot seat for good.  He's never given us reason to put him back on since.

creelymonk10

February 25th, 2014 at 1:58 PM ^

"I regret nothing.

Except the part where I stopped using facts to troll (can't argue with facts!) and started trying to prognosticate the future to troll. Also, I regret the bit where I said Beilein wasn't as good as Painter or Crean.

So... I regret... some things.

Congrats on the win(s), wouldn't mind another shot at you guys in the BTT (or, dare we dream, the final four, or something?)."

DeuceInTheDeuce

February 25th, 2014 at 11:19 AM ^

This paragraph is the best:

If you're a UM fan after that game, I don't know, have patience and hope. Enjoy the last month and a half or so of Trey Burke, he's a hell of a player. Maybe you guys can beat MSU by 20+ in Ann Arbor. Maybe you don't choke away your Big Ten title shot this year. Maybe after the 2014 season, if you've won three straight in the rivalry to claw Beilein up to .500, and a Big Ten Title or two, maybe an Elite Eight, or a Final Four (or a Sweet Sixteen), we can revisit the subject. Maybe. But man, not today.

Well now...

Evil Empire

February 25th, 2014 at 10:46 AM ^

Meyer had been on the staff but was promoted.  Alexander and Jordan were new.  Change was good.

This was a delicious outtake of the article:

Maybe after the 2014 season, if you've won three straight in the rivalry to claw Beilein up to .500, and a Big Ten Title or two, maybe an Elite Eight, or a Final Four (or a Sweet Sixteen), we can revisit the subject. Maybe. But man, not today.

Magnum P.I.

February 25th, 2014 at 10:40 AM ^

Behold the first three seasons of a one Monseigneur Brian Hersholt Ellerbe. In his first season at the helm he steered a team recruited by his predecessor to victory in the inaugural Big Ten tournament and a three-seed in the NCAA tournament. Glory!



Lo, he finished ninth on the Big Ten in his second year and then improved to a seventh-place finish in the conference in his thirdly year. A disappointing turn, to be sure. But fear not! All coaches improve and achieve the highest levels of acclaim given only time and patience. Onward, Ellerbe!

Pinto1987

February 25th, 2014 at 10:58 AM ^

Ellerbe had little experience and no track record of success.

Beilein had a great deal of experience and a solid track record of success (albeit at WVU).

Would that help the analysis?

jmblue

February 25th, 2014 at 1:22 PM ^

In hindsight it seems surprising that we gave Amaker that long, but if you look at his yearly progress, it wasn't that strange.

2001-02 - 11-18 (5-11) record, about the same as the previous year's.

2002-03 - 17-13  (10-6) - a big improvement over '02.  Banned from the postseason.

2003-04 - 23-11  (8-8) - just missed the tourney but won the NIT championship

2004-05 - 13-18 (5-11) - the year of all the injuries and Horton's suspension.  Hard to evaluate him that year.

2005-06 - 22-11 (8-8) - an unequivocal disappointment.  This should have been a tourney team.  Lost in the NIT final.

2006-07 - 22-12 (8-8) - also a disappointment, led to his dismissal.  Lost in the NIT second round.

You could have made the case for firing Amaker after year five, but probably not before then.  He did improve the program from where he inherited it, but then it plateaued at the NCAA bubble level.  

 

LSAClassOf2000

February 25th, 2014 at 10:52 AM ^

What is interesting to me is that people were willing to run a coach who had won about 5 out of every 8 games he had coached across three programs before Michigan out of town during that 15-17 season, and indeed at various points after that when we would slump.

Admittedly, it is hindsight now, but I did get a chuckle out of the statement in the one piece that said we would not have been any worse off (at the time it was written) if we had kept Tommy Amaker. I think to myself, "Perhaps not worse, but sure the ceiling is so much higher with Beilein and here we are getting a look at how good we can be with the right pieces in place, right pieces like John Beilein." 

 

Lucky Socks

February 25th, 2014 at 10:54 AM ^

We fans are a fickle group, especially in the age of information and technology. It helps to have a little perspective like this. I posted some similarities between the two regimes a while back. Hoke could still go either way, but he did make a few changes to his staff that sort of mirror what Beilein did. Let's hope Nuss and the Defensive Shuffle give us the same results.

CompleteLunacy

February 25th, 2014 at 11:01 AM ^

That perhaps we can apply the same logic to Hoke. He did just hire a new assisstant, after all. This is more a response towards those who think moving Ryan to MIKE and shuffling assistants around is "desperation" rather than simply an educated decision based on current circumstances.



The bottom line is even when you think you know what's going on, you don't. It might work, it might not. Like with Beilein, only time will tell.