MBB schedules home and home with UCLA

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on May 9th, 2016 at 8:29 PM

Michigan won't be in the Gavitt Games, but they will head to Pauley Pavilion in 2016-17.

They last played in the 2011 Maui Invitational with Michigan taking the 3rd place game, 79-63.

Last played at LA a decade ago when UCLA was ranked #1. 


UCLA and Michigan will begin a home-and-home series next season in Westwood, source told @CBSSports. Return game in Ann Arbor in 17-18.

— Jon Rothstein (@JonRothstein) May 9, 2016

2016-17 non-conf schedule will include

  • 2K Sports Classic with 2 games against either Marquette, SMU (sigh) or Pitt
  • at UCLA
  • 12/17 at Cincinnati
  • Home B1G/ACC Challenge game

2017-18 non-conf will feature-

  • Maui Invitational
  • vs UCLA
  • vs Cincinnati
  • Road B1G/ACC Challenge game
  • vs Air Force



May 10th, 2016 at 9:58 AM ^

The problem is that none of those guys is a true defensive stopper type.  Alford is also running the point guard show through his son, so there is a big team chemistry problem as well.  Michigan has had it's issues, but UCLA is a disorganized mess and I trust Beilein's teams in a  shootout far more than I trust Alford's.  

I watched both teams pretty closely last year until I just couldn't stand it with UCLA anymore, they became borderline unwatchable and realistically, unless one is bringing in Kentucky level talent every year, freshmen probably won't make a revolutionary change in performance, which is what UCLA needs right now.


May 10th, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^

Lonzo Ball is the #5 overall recruit on the 247 composite and the #2 PG.  He posted 13 assists to just 1 turnover at the McDonald's game (and he's listed at 6'6").  That is a Kentucky level recruit and he will almost certainly take over that spot from Bryce.  TJ Leaf is also a 5-star guy and Ike Anigbogu gives them another top-60 big man. 

I'm quite far from a UCLA or Alford fan, but I think they'll definitely be better this year.


May 10th, 2016 at 2:50 PM ^

I agree they SHOULD be better, the problem for me lies with the fact that Alford had Zach Lavine one year and Kevon Looney the next and did nada zip zilch with them.  So I just don't see a reason to think freshmen are a solve for him, which sucks as it feels like there is some major talent that is going to get wasted playing for him, much like watching Brady Hoke football.

What I meant by Kentucky level recruiting is a team full of Lonzo Ball/TJ leaf type guys, instead of only two of those guys to go along with what has been a pretty mediocre mix so far(although I think Bolden, Welsh, and Holiday have potential and Prince Ali should be better than he is).

I'll believe Bryce gives up minutes to any other player when I see it, the guy is a decent three point shooter, but the rest of his game is underwhelming at best and he still won;t ever come off the floor.  It's a major problem for the team and I don't see it getting solved until he graduates.  To me this is a perfect way for Michigan to go in and get a win against a relatively name team and build some early season momentum.  



May 10th, 2016 at 9:42 AM ^

There's no defendable reason for why they should be 35+ points better than us over the last two seasons.  And UConn was far from elite this year.  

For all the support for Beilein, I still have trouble finding a road non-conference win over a top 10-15 program.  We do well in NYC, but outside of that, we're pretty average in the non-conference season.



May 10th, 2016 at 11:44 AM ^

Just a few years ago SMU hired a hall of fame coach who had won a gold medal, an NCAA championship, and an NBA championship.  Then they started bending the rules like fucking crazy.

Maybe you should judge them by what they are instead of using your perception of what they used to be or should be to get upset about what has been a largely very successful basketball program here at UM.

Perkis-Size Me

May 9th, 2016 at 8:43 PM ^

The question is do they want to play us?

We might draw UNC in the near future due to the B1G/ACC, but unless we draw Kentucky in the tournament, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad


May 9th, 2016 at 10:44 PM ^

Not a Beilein hater or supporter but should we really celebrate making a 68 team tournament? That should be expected. We're not going to make the final 4 every year but I feel like at Michigan we shouldn't just be happy to be there. Same thing with bowl games.


May 10th, 2016 at 11:23 AM ^

In the last 4 years the Big Ten has put 7, 7, 6 and 7 teams in the NCAA tourney.  I'm guessing if you go back a few more years, one will continue to find that about 50% of the Big Ten teams make the toureny.  When you have doormats like NU, PSU and now Rutgers, making the NCAA tourney is great but it should be a regular occurrence.


May 9th, 2016 at 11:11 PM ^

We have won a B10 championship more recently than any team not named Wisconsin or Indiana. That includes MSU. And Purdue. And OSU. It's as if you completely skipped over that much more impressive accomplishment to point out that we shouldn't be excited about making the tournament.

And to answer your question, yes, we should celebrate making the tournament. If not making the tournament is important enough for people to call for Beilein to be fired, why wouldn't we get to be happy and celebrate it? Also, comparing making a bowl to making the tournament is ridiculous. You can finish the season with a losing record and still have made a bowl


May 9th, 2016 at 11:19 PM ^

John Beilein has won 10 NCAA tourney games at UM (not counting this year's play-in game).  Tom Crean has won 6 at IU (in just one fewer season).  Mark Turgeon has won 6 at A&M and Maryland in the same period that Beilein has been at UM.  Matt Painter has won 8 at Purdue, despite being there two seasons longer than Coach B has been at Michigan.  Thad Matta has won 12 at OSU in the time Beilein has been here, despite a head start building his program.  Both he and Bo Ryan inherited programs from coaches who had gone to the Final Four. 

No one is celebrating "just making the tournament."  But maybe people shouldn't weep about our basketball fortunes when the team still makes the tourney despite losing three early entrants to the NBA draft, its best player to injury, and another senior leader to injury.


May 10th, 2016 at 10:00 AM ^

That's like playing in the CFP one year, a NY6 game another year and then the Alamo Bowl the other seven years.  That's not going to make many people happy.  

I think the weeping about our fortunes is due to what's coming in at Spartyland and what feels like an unclear direction for our program (Max/Spike transfers, Langford/Battle miscalculation, two possible unfilled roster spots for 2016-17, undervalued incoming recruiting class).  

But the losing people to the draft and injuries can't be used every season.  Good programs lose kids to the draft all the time and reload.


May 10th, 2016 at 10:11 AM ^

I would like to know which good program went deep in the tournament, lost 3 kids early to the draft and then had the other 2 starters injured and then won their conference. Which team lost all 5 starters from their deep run and then won a lot of games the next year.

Actually, we also lost Morford, so we were playing without our top 7 players from that team that won the B10 by 3 games. I'll wait for you to tell me all those awesome teams that reload when they play the following year without their top 7 players from the year before.


May 10th, 2016 at 11:55 AM ^

1. The whole "losing kids early to the draft" is a poor excuse IMO.  I think in all cases (except Staukus), we knew well adead of time that they were going pro before graduating.  So there were no real surprises and we could have prepared better to fill those imminent gaps.

2. With regards to your reload comment - I think you are being a little too myopic.  To your point, it would be difficult for many/most teams to reload after the scenario you outlined...in the year after.  However, we are several years beyond that point.  Most (if not all) good programs do reload within a couple years.  We have not.  And it is especially more concerning if we cannot fill our 2 open spots with someone other than a high-risk flyer.  In addition, in our case, we were supposed to gain a "recruiting bump" after our the success from a couple years ago.  We didn't (and some could argue it went the opposite direction), which makes the current state of this program even more baffling.