Pat Forde: Beilein refusing Spike transfer release to B1G school is "height of hypocrisy"
Pretty much the bad PR you might expect, and I agree. Coaches shouldn't have veto power over transfer destination.
LINK to article titled "Height of Hypocrisy: Michigan Limiting Spike Albrecht's Transfer Options"
Money quotes from Beilein:
"There are 334 other schools he can go to,” Beilein told Yahoo Sports on Wednesday, almost getting the math right on 351 minus the other 13 Big Ten members. “He has a lot of choices."
And...
"Having a kid sit out a year is not like going to jail,” he said. “It’s a slippery slope. I want what’s best for Spike but also what’s best for our program. You train a guy and develop him for four years and suddenly he’s the starting point guard at Michigan State?"
As for Spike's dad Chuck, he seems to be taking it better than I would:
"To be honest, this is kind of what we expected,” he said. “It’s not totally a surprise. I don’t think it’s real fair, but it seems like the norm.
"There’s certain schools in the Big Ten he’d never consider and others he might, I don’t know. If they’re worried about Spike – I think they’ve got bigger problems. But we do respect Michigan and the program, so Spike doesn’t want to cause problems.”
Forde closes with this, which I totally agree with:
Yet here in the real world, a player who will have a degree – and who has already been told he’s not going to have a scholarship in 2016-17 – is still having his future controlled and curtailed by the college. It’s wrong. And at Michigan, where the 2015 starting quarterback was a Hawkeye in 2014, it’s also hypocritical.
...but Michigan is higher profile school from top to bottom. We do have the history as you mentioned. And you are downplaying the resource thing because it's not really about money. It's about brand and power...and we have that much more than Wisconsin. We also have access to much more fertile recruiting grounds. There should be no reason to think that we can be better than you. I would take it as a compliment.
I would ask yourself why and how your program became so good 15 years ago. Then you'll know why we are "ordained" to be better than you.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
You'd think at some point during the last two decades all of these built in advantages that are so obvious to you would actually manifest themselves where it counts.
Program measures like proflle, brand equity and power are junk food for the fanbase. They are also objectively worthless if they don't translate to sustained success, unless your method of keeping score is to look at licensing revenues. I promise you, the last thing I felt when Wisconsin was in the last two Final Fours was a brand inferiority or lack of profile.
The reason our program became so good? It's the same explanation for why MSU has been able to maintain its superiority over Michigan. For why UCLA or Indiana, with more "brand" and "power" than anyone, have been inconsistent, and a program without those advantages like Gonzaga has not. Why onetime powers like St. John's or Georgetown have fallen off the map, but bluebloods like Duke, Carolina or Kentucky haven't. Coaching. You need the right coach to implement and maintain the right blueprint for a consistent program identity that is also right for the university. Brand and power without the right coach are worthless, but the right coach can succeed without those things. And that's not a commentary on whether or not Beilein is the right coach for Michigan.
Fertile recruiting territory also doesn't mean anything when you are not the premiere prgram in your state. It's especially overrated in the age of one and done. Last year UW lost out on two in-state prospects, Diamond Stone and Henry Ellenson. They both led their teams to earlier NCAA tournament exits than UW managed without them (Marquette didn't even make it). They will both turn pro after a year. Wisconsin will retunr everyone and start the year in the top 10. So, while I am not insane enough to maintain that recruiting doesn't matter, I do believe chasing blue chips every year is a very difficult way to live for all but a handful of programs, most of which do not share Michigan's academic and ethical profile. I actually think this has been Izzo's greatest accomplishment, and why Tony Bennett's next few years will be interesting.
If they are Final 4 runs, that's different. 2 F4 runs in the next 8 years would be great. A lot has been posted on the history of Michigan, and there aren't many programs that have had the same success historically in the B1G.
To answer your question, I think being a top 2-3 team in the B1G, (almost) never missing the tourney, with Sweet 16 two out of every 4 years and final four 1 of those 2 (i.e 1 out of 4 years) would be maximizing the talent, facilities, and tradition. Anything less than that feels like settling. It might not always happen, but we can be bothered by the results if it doesn't.
Again, I think that's the ceiling, meaning what a top tier / elite coach can reach with Mich resources. Is that unrealistic in your mind?
March 31st, 2016 at 11:30 AM ^
the program has taken a step back since the NC run. Maybe that was inevitable on the court given the injuries and attrition, but what was not inevitable was the total decline in recruiting which should have gone up after 2013 but clearly went down.
March 31st, 2016 at 12:41 AM ^
I was all for perspective when people were unhappy with Lloyd's 8-4 baseline and the occasional B1G title and shot at nat'l championship. And what Beilien has done is pretty good and perspective should be maintained.
But to compare Michigan to an average or typical or even 90% of other college programs is apples and oranges. Michigan has a huge AD budget, makes a ton of money filling the largest stadium in the country and has a top 5 national brand. Those things were known when we all went to the school or became fans. We shouldn't have a sense of entitlement, but our bar is higher than average and we can (and do) pay our coaches more than most schools (which comes from many of us paying for tickets). And if one of those coach's programs is regressing (not necessarily saying Beilien's is) than it's fair to wonder if something is wrong. We wouldn't accept average here and I don't think any of our coaches come here accepting that either. "Perspective" here is a little different.
All elite coaches find a way, whether through current depth, talent, and/or grad transfers. MSU has dealt with significant injuries in the past and did well...and so have we (lost mcgary and still won the big ten). Excuses, excuses
And, if I'm reading your analogy right, you are comparing spike to an all-conference player. In that losing him was somehow devastating to the team. That's ridiculous. I like spike, but come on! He's not a "move the needle" type of player. And if we was, JB would have found a way to bring him back.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 31st, 2016 at 10:13 AM ^
JB did NOT find a way this year. I'm not downplaying that we got to the tourney because I'm happy that we did. But I think we need to temper that achievement slightly. We got in to the FIRST FOUR on a fluke last second shot and the fact that SMU and Louisville were ineligible. We were an NIT team in NCAA clothing. And we played like an NIT team.
Your assertion that losing Valentine would mean that they MSU would have a hard time getting to .500 is just ridiculous. They had a lot of other talent, and of the senior laden variety folks like yourself like to value a lot. They probably aren't winning the big ten tourney, but come on man!
Lastly, I can agree that their will be improvement going into next year, but that's not the issue. The question is whether we can do so at a pace faster than the other teams ahead of us this year. You may disagree with me, but I think Irving and Walton have hit their ceilings. Most others Michigan players are low ceiling type players. In short, I don't think we have the talent to keep up, regardless of much they improve.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 31st, 2016 at 12:27 PM ^
March 31st, 2016 at 12:44 PM ^
That was one fluke game. 9 out of 10 times they win that game. MSU was 2nd in the big10 and won the big10 tournament. Valentine was a major contribotor no doubt. Losing him does not make them a .500 team. That's a big stretch.
March 31st, 2016 at 12:48 PM ^
Next year, OSU and Wisconsin will be better than us. After that, it's hard to tell.
Lastly, I never said that we didn't make the tournament, because we did make the tournament. Just that making the FIRST FOUR (and winning that game) isn't really a big accomplishment IMO considering how lucky we got getting there.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
March 31st, 2016 at 11:42 AM ^
I appreciate (but don't necessarily agree with) your well-reasoned argument. I do take umbrage with you saying Mich is a mediocre program historically. Maybe the 10 years prior to JB, but definitely not historically.
"As a fan of another program (Iowa State) that has been a mediocre basketball program until recently"