Next big 3 Michigan sport to win National title/have National POY?

Submitted by Wolverine Devotee on June 28th, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Had a discussion today with a friend and wanted to get the MGoBoard's opinions on who they think will be next.

I think the next national champion of the "big 3" (Football, Men's Basketball, Hockey) will be Hockey because of the excellent talent they have now as well as having another a first round NHL draft pick come in for potentially a minimum of 3 years. 

They just have to put it together chemistry wise. IMO, it's all there. We've seen what they're capable of when clicking. That goes for everyone. Nagelvoort was leading the nation in save % for a good chunk of last season as a freshman. 

For the next national POY, this is a tough one but I would say Basketball. 

 

Comments

UMxWolverines

June 28th, 2014 at 3:25 PM ^

I think there is a lot of talent on the hockey team right now, but unfortunately I don't see them winning a national title with Red as coach. 

Football should have enough talent to compete for a playoff spot, but this year really will tell if we have the right coaching staff in place for that. 

If I had to pick one I would say basketball. Because Beilein. All that needs to be said. 

gwkrlghl

June 28th, 2014 at 4:26 PM ^

  • We've got two goalies returning with very good starting experience
  • We've got a lot of offensive talent returning
  •     Look for Hyman to breakout this year
  •     Plus Nieves, Allen, Motte, Compher, and Copp
  • Plus the addition of Larkin
  • Alex Guptill isn't here anymore to be a lazy ass and ruin things

I think because our expectations are always so high, we forget we were basically just a bubble team the last two years. We didn't go 10-28 or something. If (big if) the D is better than average, this team can be great. Even with a shaky D, I think we'll be good enough to make the tournament

Hopefully we study film and figure out how to beat Penn State too

Jon06

June 28th, 2014 at 3:32 PM ^

Red's not going to be here forever, and we don't know who will replace him. It doesn't seem like the team's been the same since Pearson left, anyway.

Beilein is going to keep us in the hunt for the foreseeable future.

Peppers might be the second coming of Woodson, but frankly I'd be less surprised to see Caris take home POY next year than to see Peppers get a Heisman.

Doc Brown

June 28th, 2014 at 6:47 PM ^

Hockey will easily be the first to win a national championship. Hockey isn't bound by the shady by the scenes bagmen or PED's like basketball and football that is rampant in the SEC and the Big XII. Mike Babcock will guide us to the next national championship with junior captain Dylan Larkin and future hobey baker winner senior Zach Nagelvoot. 

Yes....this will happen. As spoken by the THE KNOWLEDGE. Yes. 

Clark Griswold

June 28th, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^

Well. No way we Hoke ever gets close to one, and Red is way past him prime. So Basketball is the default. If Red leaves soon then I can see Hockey winning first though based on the talent factor.

gwkrlghl

June 28th, 2014 at 4:18 PM ^

Postseason success != Conference Titles. It's much easier to get hot and win 3 games in a row than it is to stay good all season.

Beilein won a few small conference titles but not a single conference title with WVU. Neither coach had won a non-small school conference title before coming here. Hoke is flailing but so was Beilein after year 3, there's just a lot more scruntiny on Michigan football than there was on Michigan basketball

tpilews

June 30th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^

I'm not pretending anything. I was just correcting his, obviously, flawed data. I agree that there haven't been any signature wins on the road the past few years. I still think it's too early to make a decision on Hoke either way. Ideally, he'd have two more years to show that the program is moving in the right direction. I don't think the Michigan fanbase, as a whole, is patient enough. 

BlueCube

June 28th, 2014 at 5:11 PM ^

want to think, Mattison, Nuss, Manning and the others would have to be total idiots to come/stay here. I'm not sure of all of their reputations, but Mattison, Nuss and Manning could go anywhere in the country. I think these guys are smart enough to know a good coach when they see one. So you may be the one who needs to think before he posts. But then again that's why you have yet another profile going.

gdavis23_goblue

June 29th, 2014 at 5:05 AM ^

My point was he HAS had success before coming to michigan. He turned both Ball State and SDSU around. Those programs had no success in anything before hoke showed up. You said coach B was the only one of the two with any true success prior to this job, your wrong. No he never one a title with those teams, but he did have great success. 

WindyCityBlue

June 29th, 2014 at 6:38 AM ^

...he did NOT turn ball state around. I don't have the numbers in from of me, but in short, he performed below historical ball state standards and was pretty much on par with the Bill Lynch, the previous coach.

Perhaps he turned SDSU, but maybe there was is not enough data.

You can say a lot of good things about Hoke, but saying he "turns programs around" is probably the most subjective and suspicious claims about him.

MChem83

June 29th, 2014 at 8:23 AM ^

Hoke only went from 4-8 to 7-6. He had a breakout 6th season at 12-1, but then left. At SD State, he was 4-8 his first year and 9-4 his second, then left again. In both cases, he had only one good season, and didn't stick around long enough to show that he could win at a high level year after year after year. Call those turn-rounds if you want, but I'm more concerned with consistent winning, which Hoke so far has not shown he's capable of.

newtopos

June 29th, 2014 at 5:04 PM ^

Bill Lynch's last three years at Ball State: 5-6, 5-6, 6-6 (2000-2002).

Hoke's first four years at Ball State: 4-8, 2-9, 4-7, 5-7 (2003-2006). 

Each of Hoke's first four seasons was worse than any of the previous three seasons under Lynch.  

Regardless of the positives and negatives of Hoke as Michigan's coach, saying he "turned around" Ball State is about as accurate as saying he always wears long sleeves and a headset, that Rich Rod never got angry on the sidelines, and that Bill Lynch never threw his gum on the sidelines -- namely, not accurate at all.

BeileinBuddy

June 28th, 2014 at 3:59 PM ^

NC - hockey, basketball, football

NPOY - basketball, hockey, football

LeVert is probably our NPOY contender next season then I'd say Compher/Nagelvoort are next up for Hobey

JayMo4

June 28th, 2014 at 4:06 PM ^

These things are tricky because there are varying degrees of luck involved with each of them.  

It's very easy to lose a hockey game in fluky fashion and so even if Michigan hockey was the most talented team in the country they can still run into a hot goaltender or just have a lot of near-miss goals cost them.  I've seen too many games where one team just dominates the puck and gets many more shots and still loses (often it's been us!)

Basketball you can't really lose a game that you dominate, but the levels of parity in the modern college game means even the best teams are going to run into good competition at some point - especially when you consider that the most talented teams are also often the youngest.  You have to win multiple close games within a couple weeks of each other, and so - as with hockey - even if we're the best team on paper it is going to be tricky.

Football I think among the big three is the sport where having the most talented team comes closest to guaranteeing success.  But among those three it's also clearly the sport where Michigan is least likely to reach that tip top level.

 

I can envision a scenario where Michigan basketball could win one in the 2015-16 season, so I guess I'll say basketball just because I have to pick one.  I just hope this exercise proves more fruitful than that time in the early 90's where some of us kids at school were betting on which Cleveland pro team would win a title first.  That has proven to be a game without winners.

Perkis-Size Me

June 28th, 2014 at 4:09 PM ^

Normally I'd say basketball because we have great talent and great coaching, but it's so damn hard to win a national title in college basketball. The tournament is a crapshoot, and you could lose and end your season on any given night. But I'd say we'll get a NPOY in basketball before football because Beilein has been churning out first round picks left and right. He's already proven that he has the ability to get his players to that level. Hoke, to date, has not.

If I had more faith in Hoke, I'd say a football national title would come first, because the talent level is getting there to compete for a playoff spot. But until Hoke proves otherwise, I don't think he's a national title caliber coach. I hope he proves me wrong. Still, I'll say football because even if we ditch Hoke, whoever comes in will have a great amount of talent to work with. And hopefully by that point DB will open up the checkbook and get whoever the best coach is.

alum96

June 28th, 2014 at 9:05 PM ^

Keep hearing basketball is difficult so by default hockey or football.  Well football isn't easy either.  You cannot have 1 screw up all year - a lot of great teams lose 1 game and in the new format the Big 10 will never have more than 1 team in the playoff.  Being in the same divsion as OSU (and MSU until Dantonio leaves) you could have  a great team that brain farts 1x on the road - at say Illinois one year - and loses to OSU and never even sniffs the Big 10 championship game not to mention a playoff not to mention win it all.

Football has almost zero measure for error to be the NC - in basketball you can screw up multiple times, comes in 3rd in your conference and as long as you have the talent and come together at the right time you can win it all.  See UK OR UConn last year.   Much larger room for error over 4 months.

UM should be a regular Sweet 16 type team as long as Beilein is around.  Yes a year or two we will suffer an upset but 4/5 years I'd expect now a sweet 16 unless we have a year like 2014-2015 where 70%+ of our production goes to the NBA.

So the way I look at it one year MBB has to go 4-0 from that point forward.  So what is the probability of that happening versus EVERYTHING going perfect for what is a head football coach who has yet to prove much of anything other than recruiting prowess.  In a program that has been mediocre for going on 15 years. Show me a game Hoke has outcoached or outschemed (or his assistants) a team with superior talent once, or won versus a "better" team at their place - I'd have more belief something could ever happen.

Last point, we've one NC in 50 years in football and had no reasonable chance at any other in what - 35 years?  Meanwhile in basketball not only did we win one, we came in 2nd three times.  With multiple coaches no less.   And as for conferences in the BCS era only 1 team in the conf has won a NC in football or even had a chance.  Meanwhile multiple Big 10 bball teams have had a chance (final game) or won the NC in the same BCS era.  The Big 10 is also not a laughing stock nationally in bball like it is in football.

I dumped the Dope

June 28th, 2014 at 10:53 PM ^

In football a certain amount of luck is involved. 

Consider the case of the Irish who backed into 'Bama a couple years ago.  No name Penn had a victory in hand with a 30yd FG lined up in OT to seal the Irishes fate in mediocrity, but they shanked it.

Bama lost once, mid-season and was behind Oregon and KSU who both lost in the same weekend to vault Bama back on top if my grey matter flash memory is still intact.

Auburn needed an unlikely FG return for touchdown to best Bama to get to the NCG.

It would be monumental to go out and simply stonewall every opponent faced in an entire season as if Fielding Yost was raised from the dead to rework his gridiron magic but I don't see it happening to any team.  There's always going to be the "bounce of the ball" phenomenon.

gwkrlghl

June 28th, 2014 at 4:11 PM ^

The teams are still perennially top 5 in talent. Its just gonna take a little luck to finally break through the tournament but the hcokey tournament is...a bastard. BC was good enough to win most of the titles in the 2000's but the best team rarely wins the tournament.

Wolverine Devotee

June 28th, 2014 at 5:29 PM ^

Because that's the difference in Michigan being 12 time national champions. 

Red would have a national title as a player and coach. The title in 1997 would've cemented that team as one of if not the greatest to ever play college hockey. Oh yeah, and they'd be the first team to 3-peat since......Michigan back in in 1951-1953. 

NJblue2

June 28th, 2014 at 4:19 PM ^

I'd say hockey, because that seems easier to win (compared to March Madness) and the talent is there. I can't see football winning anytime soon, since they can barely compete for a conference title as it is.

LSAClassOf2000

June 28th, 2014 at 4:20 PM ^

If I were going to make a guess based on momentum and just the level at which the program is operating right now, then I would probably guess basketball just for that reason with football perhaps not as far behind as some might guess - if we do well enough this season and then can maintain that, we could probably creep into one of those discussions - perhaps POY before the NC just because of how the playoffs seem to work. As for hockey, I could be wrong, but I think Red is about to enter the last year of that extension and I have a vague feeling (which could also be wrong) that we might see a coaching change due to retirement in hockey in the relatively near future.