A history on how Michigan Basketball used to recruit
Per Hoopscoop. Rankings began in 1983. For the purpose of this post I'm not including any signees outside the top 100. This should give a good overall view of basketball recruiting before the Amaker/Ellerbe years. I included Ellerbe's 1999 class to show that Michigan still had some cache' despite looming sanctions and atrocious facilities. Would be interested if anyone could find anything before 1983. I'm sure guys like Tarpley, McCormick, Hubbard, etc were all highly acclaimed coming out of high school.
1983: Antoine Joubert (#25 overall), Quincy Turner (#64 overall), Garde Thompson (#81 overall)
1984: Gary Grant (#11 overall)
1985: Glen Rice (#6 overall), Loy Vaught (#20 overall)
1986: Terry Mills (#2 overall), Rumeal Robinson (#5 overall)
1987: Sean Huggins (#12 overall), Kirk Taylor (#37 overall), Chris Seter (#52 overall)
1988: No Top 100 players
1989: Sam Mitchell (#42 overall), Tony Tolbert (#44 overall), Michael Talley (#64 overall)
1990: No Top 100 players
1991:Chris Webber (#1 overall), Juwan Howard (#3 overall), Jalen Rose (#6 overall), Jimmy King (#9 overall), Ray Jackson (#84 overall)
1992: No Top 100 players
1993: Bobby Crawford (#19 overall), Oliver St Jean, Makhtar Ndaiye
1994: Jerod Ward (#1 overall), Maceo Baston (#16 overall), Maurice Taylor (#18 overall), Willie Mitchell (#19 overall)
1995: Robert Traylor (#4 overall), Louis Bullock (#11 overall), Albert White (#16 overall)
Sidenote re: 1995. Kevin Garnett was the #1 ranked player and there were substantial rumors he would have come to Michigan if his coach and not "misplaced" his qualifying SAT score.
1996: No Top 100 players
1997: Brandon Smith (#63 overall)
1998: No Top 100 players
1999: Lavell Blanchard (#6 overall), Kevin Gaines (#11 overall), Jamal Crawford (#46 overall), Leland Anderson (#83 overall)
McDonald's All Americans (Began in '79): Blanchard, Bullock, Grant, Higgins, Horton, Howard, Joubert, King, McCormick, Mills, Rellford, Robinson, Rose, Traylor, Turner, Ward, Webber.
Of the football powers, ND has the most basketball wins and highest winning percentage (ugh).
Here are the schools known for football with the best all-time basketball records:
ND - 1,795 wins, 9th all-time, .649%
BYU - 1738 wins, 12th all-time, .624%
Washington - 1716 wins, 17th all-time, .604%
MSU - 1608 wins, 30th all-time, .603
OSU - 1607 wins, 31st all-time, .609
Michigan isn't in the top 50, but their record is:
Michigan - 1,528 or 1,415 wins (including or excluding vacated wins), .600 or .583
Of course, this is only wins and winning %; doesn't include NCAA success or championships.
Not sure if BYU or Washington really count as football powers.
Mmmm... Ohio State is pretty close to a top 10 basketball school under Matta.
Sporting News says they're the #13 program 2001-2015.
Point After says they're the #13 program of the 21st century.
SI said they were the #7 program in the country in 2014.
The amount of fans, or the size of the endownment, or how many alums are living are completely irrelevant to the discussion - those things have literally nothing to do with success on the basketball court. The reason we can't be a top 10 basketball school RIGHT NOW is because we are just too far behind everyone else, and have been ever since the fab 5 left.
We could get back their eventually, but it's going to take time. And this is sports. Shit happens. You miss a recruit here or there, your two senior leaders and team captains get hurt for the whole season, your top recruit gets banned for a year by the NCAA for pot use, etc...
It doesn't take 20 years for a program to catch up after sanctions. Fact is if Michigan hired Pitino instead of Amaker we'd be an elite program right now. All it takes is the right coach.
And even if we take your assumption as truth, it still would have take a while to be a consistently good program. Beilein has taken this program to heights I don't think most people thought he could, and apparently he did it too quickly as it has over-inflated our fans expectations.
Also, it's pretty easy to say "if we had Pitino instead of Amaker". We didn't get Pitino, and Pitino is one of the best coaches of his generation. You can't just expect to fire Beilein and get a coach of Pitino's quality.
Loiusville just had their NC vacated due to recruting infractions and is about to be put on probation! Seriously?
but he DIDN'T come here. So the conversation is entirely moot, as it proves how hard it is to get a coach like that, and it demonstrates what can happen if you go all in for someone and don't get him.
You're missing the point. We had Pitino signed, sealed, and delivered until his wife vetoed the move. It had nothing to do with the perception of Michigan basketball, we were good enough for Pitino in 2001 so why aren't we good enough for a similarly great coach now?
Louisville had their national title vacated? No, they didn't. Stop making shit up.
The average NBA coach makes about $3.5 million per year I think. We can afford to pay one that to coach at Michigan.
Beilein is going to make 3.4 million next year.
30,000 students is not small.
Please explain how those factors pertain to basketball success.
Unless you are paying players, what possible connection is there between the size of endowment and success in college basketball?
Michigan's athletic department is financially separate from the rest of the school. The school very recently invested big dollars in upgrading facilities. That said, how much can you really spend on basketball?
There are 350 college basketball teams for a reason - the cost to run a basketball program is tiny compared to football. Money (unless illegally spent) just isn't that important.
If anything, Michigan's being a top school makes success in basketball more challenging, as not every kid can hack Michigan's academics. Yes, Duke - I get it. Stanford is good in football, too. Rare exception.
Every top basketball school is lousy at football. Several top football schools (Michigan included) are reasonably successful at basketball. It's simply not realistic to expect more than that.
Michigan basketball doesn't have the same history, fan base, cache, notoriety, or student involvement that our football program has. So what?
Why is it so "unacceptable" to be great at football and good at basketball?
Has the financial resources to compete at the highest levels academically and in sports. We can afford to hire the best basketball coach money can buy.
I just don't understand why anything less than greatness is acceptable to so many fans and alums.
Icarus. You all need to read about Icarus.
Michigan has had more success in basketball under Beilein than UCLA.
UCLA has 1 Final Four appearance in 07-08 (they made the final four in 05-06 and 06-07, but those are years before Beilein came to Michigan).
They made the NCAAT 3 of the next 5 years, but never made it out of the first weekend. They won the Pac-12 regular season in 2012-13, but lost the P12 Championship game, and got knocked out in the first round against Minnesota.
They fired Ben Howland after that season, and hired Steve Alford.
In his first season, they won the P12 conference tournament, and only made it to the Sweet 16.
They made the Sweet 16 the next season as well (finished 4th in the P12)
This year, they missed the NCAAT and finished with a losing record of 15-17.
So.........
I think it's safe to say UCLA is traditionally more of a basketball school than a football school.
So why has Beilien and Michigan outperformed UCLA? And UCLA hasn't struggled producing NBA talent during this time period either.
Arron Afflalo, Russell Westbrook, Mbah a Moute, Kevin Love, Jrue Holiday, Darren Collison, Shabazz Muhammad, Zach LaVine, Kyle ANderson, Jordan Adams, Kevon Looney, and Norman Powell.
Also, it appears the grass isn't always greener on the other side. Looks like Steve Alford won't live up to UCLA's expectations, and UCLA will be stuck trying to find a new coach again. I can't see why Michigan fans think we can hire a better coach than Beilein.
I'll explain my position to you, and acknowledge it's just my opinion.
1. Ethics. I admire and prioritize ethics. I am a dedicated fan, alum, and supporter of UM because we aspire to do things well, within the rules. Basketball, in my opinion, is dirtier and more corrupt than football, so it's more difficult to succeed playing by the rules in basketball. I admire that Beilein is squeaky-clean. I understand not everyone shares my opinion.
2. Students. Maybe old-fashioned, but I believe college sports is supposed to be about student-athletes. Real students, who actually belong at Michigan and participate in student life. I'm proud of our school and our student-athletes. I'm totally fine with academic support, tutors, and resources for student-athletes; I'm not fine with one-and-done kids who don't belong at Michigan and don't attend class.
3. Football School. I love that Michigan's entire athletic department is successful, and support and applaud all our teams. However, no other team or program compares to football in terms of fan support, resources, notoriety or student involvement. Football is king at Michigan, basketball is not. For those reasons, my expectation level is higher in football than basketball.
4. Competition. There are 350 D1 basketball teams, and only 125 or so football teams. Basketball requires far less that football in terms of resources and money, and there are far fewer players. It's easier for smaller schools to compete. That said, there are 5 or 6 truly dominant basketball programs, none of which are also football powerhouses. Given a choice, I prefer that Michigan is a blue-blood in football.
5. Alternatives. We've all seen what it's like to be really bad. I don't want to go there again. I also have no desire to see Michigan mired in scandal again. Taking everything into account, IMO Michigan basketball under Beilein is pretty damn good. Instability is often bad; coaching changes are risky.
I would love to see somewhat better recruiting, and hope we can make another exciting tournament run soon. JB isn't perfect, but for the most part I'm ok with the current state of our hoops program.
Sorry if TL/DR. Just wanted to offer one person's rationale for supporting JB.
"...there are far fewer players"
This is one of, if not the biggest difference between football and basketball. In college basketball, if you get a recruiting class with 1 or 2 of the elite (Top 15) players, you essentially stacked the deck in your favor; anything less than a Sweet 16 is a lost season. Now you have realistically 100+ teams throwing everything they've got at 15 kids (with likely only a handful of them do you develop a 4+ year relationship with and truly go all-in).
I don't care if Michigan hires Phil Jackson, Larry Brown, Kobe Bryant, and Michael Jordan; we are not going to convince HS kids to come to Michigan over Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC, MSU, Arizona, UCLA, or Louisville. We are not a basketball blue blood school, and we never will be. We could throw the house at the basketball program, recruit illegaly, hold recruit stripper parties, and still not get the talent that the previously mentioned teams bring in annually.
You're right there are a very small number of "blue bloods" that have a distinct advantage, but it's not impossible for a school to get their level of talent, at least for a period of time.
It seems to me there are 2 ways to do it. Cheat, and/or have an all-time great coach.
I wouldn't include MSU or Arizona as blue-bloods - they've had great recent success, but they're not historic hoops powers like the others. Both schools have reeled in a lot of talent in recent years.
Other schools that have had blue-blood levels of talent, at least for awhile:
Michigan had the Fab Five, and quite a bit of talent before and after that. '89 team was loaded.
Georgetown under Thompson
OSU under Matta
Syracuse under Boeheim
Indiana under Knight
Maryland under Lefty
Illinois under Lou-doo
UConn under Calhoun (maybe not blue-blood level talent, but pretty good)
Pitino and Calipari at various stops
Further back,
Depaul under Meyer
Marquette under Mcguire
I'm sure there are others I've forgotten.
One caveat - it does seem the best talent is more concentrated in fewer schools in recent years.
But I think recruits today are more in the mindset of "what have you done lately" and "how can I get a NBA 1st round contract".
Which is why I listed the teams above.
Michigan has been, and will be fighting an uphill battle in basketball. As we saw, a recent string of success and sending kids to the NBA isn't and won't be enough to topple the giants.
You either need to dive head first into dirty water, or accept the fact that you won't be Kentucky (but can still field a team that loses to them on a last second 3 from a 30% 3-pt shooter).
I'm 100% on Beilein's side. He is bringing in a very nice class this year. We will finally have a roster with seniors that hopefully will contribute all season (plz no injuries ok).
I think this upcoming season we will see an Elite 8, and a Top 3 finish in the B1G.
MSU wasn't a "blue blood" before Izzo.
In fact - when Izzo got hired at MSU, Michigan had a significantly more storied basketball history.
Why, if MSU could become a blue blood basketball school can't we?
the kids who care if Michigan is one of the best universities on the entire planet. Unfortunately most of the top rated kids are choosing the destination that gives them the shortest route to the NBA.
guessing not
"a passive aggressive shot at beilein's recruiting"
All I did was present facts. You can do with them what you please. If you are satisfied with how Beilein has been recruiting these last few years then fine. That's your perrogative. I think he should be doing better. My opinion.
that's all i'm sayin, man.
and all you did was "present facts", then why did you leave out the last 17 years? It's almost like your cherry-picking these facts to fit your narrative.
That is explained in my post if you actually took the time to read it. I wanted to provide context BEFORE the Amaker and Ellerbe years. Next time don't be such a quick trigger ass and actually read what's right in front of you.
if you resort to insults, it's hard to take you seriously. Regardless of what justication you give, it comes across as distorting facts to fit your narrative. Because that's exactly what it is.
"I'm just presenting facts. I left out the ones that dont' fit my narrative for a completely unrelated reason, I swear."
Sure, buddy.
What good would it do to talk about recruiting classes with the two worst coaches in Michigan basketball history, while on probation, with literally the worst facilities in the B1G.
It would be like talking about the 50's and 60's when Michigan was just terrible at football. Same goes for the Hoke/Rich Rod years. Bad eras happen.
I've made it pretty clear where I stand with beilein's recruiting. I'm not hiding from it. Why you and two other in this thread continue to persecute anyone who doesn't agree with you is flat out bush league.
Stop upvoting yourself, it's embarrassing
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Beilein inherited a team that had won more than 20 games each of the two previous seasons and had a team that included Manny Harris, DeShawn Sims, and Epke Udoh. Hows that for context?
I just don't think you can take the eras as occuring on equal footing though, though, given both how Michigan's administrators reacted to the Martin scandal and how recruiting's changed.
The cloud that surrounded Michigan basketball, and that led to the Ellerbe and Amaker eras, has colored the choices that Michigan's administration has made toward basketball recruiting, particularly with an emphasis on utter cleanliness on the recruiting trail. And this occured during an era of dramatic change in recruiting, with connections to shady AAU brokers and the rise of the one and done era.
I think Belein's carrying out the wishes of Michigan's administrators, who are clearly not willing to do what even a school like Duke is willing to do in terms of subsidizing AAU coaches in various ways. And those decisions cut out a good number of the truly elite recruits.
Belein has clearly missed out on the limited number of elite prospects he's had a chance to recruit recently (Jaylen Brown, the kid who decommitted for Syracuse) but he's also competing with significant restrictions that are both of his own ethical determination and that meet the demands of folks in the administration who felt very burned.
Why would the worst era in Michigan basketball history be "the benchmark" for a recruiting study? That's like saying 2008-2014 is the benchmark for football success.
it doesn't want to be included in any such benchmark.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
before social media, 247 sports television, the transformation of AAU ball, etc. be relevant?
highly ranked guys on that list that were never all that great at Michigan. No where near as good as Burke, LeVert, Stauskas and others.
Also, there used to be a lot more highly ranked kids in Michigan high schools than there is now.
Here's anohter blurb from Bob Simmons:
MICHIGAN: RECRUITING'S NO. 1
Back-to-back national recruiting titles won't automatically put any banners in your rafters. But Michigan has laid the foundation for a return to the Final Four by becoming the first school to finish No. 1 in basketball recruiting in consecutive years.
"I've been doing this since 1978, and no school has ever accomplished this," said recruiting analyst Bob Gibbons, editor of "All Star Sports Report" in Lenoir, N.C. "North Carolina was No. 2 in 1980 with Sam Perkins and No. 1 in 1981 with Michael Jordan and won the NCAA title in 1982."
The Wolverines edged Arkansas this season by getting three of the top 15 players in Gibbons's ratings. Detroit Murray-Wright center Robert Traylor (No. 3) will sign today, the first day of the spring signing period. Inkster (Mich.) forward Albert White (No. 7) and Laurel (Md.) Baptist guard Louis Bullock (No. 15) signed in November.
"They are the only school with three McDonald's All-Americas," Gibbons said of the Wolverines. "It's not a Fab Five, but certainly a terrific trio."
really just trying to get this straight in my mind. Are you really using the Fab Five, Robert Traylor, and Louis Bullock as "anti-Beilein" arguments?