Steady State MBB Expectations

Submitted by WindyCityBlue on April 3rd, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Last night's game, like most years, got me thinking about the state of our MBB program.  Can we ever get the talent a Kansas or Kentucky has?  Can we regularly be a threat in the NCAA tourney? 

Despite the river of shit our program has gone through, I still think we came out clean and should be a truly dominate program.  "This is Michigan fergodsakes" should also apply to MBB.  But perhaps my expectations of the steady state MBB are a bit too high.  They are as follows:

1. Win the B10 once every 4 years

2. Make the NCAA tourney every year with no first round losses

3. Make a Final 4 once every 4-6 years (I know this is a stretch)

4. Make the NC game once every 10

Keep in mind that I don't think we have hit our "steady state" yet.  I think this occurs in about 2 years when all facility upgrades are completed, our new-found commitment to MBB has been fully implemented, and are regularly getting the recruits we should.

Thoughts?

Comments

snarling wolverine

April 3rd, 2012 at 12:16 PM ^

#2 is not realistic.  MSU has basically done everything else on your list, but they've lost in the first round four times since 2002.  Duke, too, lost in the first round this year.  Sometimes sh*t happens in one game.

Tater

April 3rd, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^

Before Perry Watson and Ed Martin showed up, Michigan was a very good program.  The Tournament was expected every year, and Michigan was in the mix for the BT Championship more often than not, even if they didn't win them all.  

Indiana was an elite program at that time, and MSU was right around equal to Michigan most years, with both schools trading off the advantage from season to season.  Iowa was decent, too.  Ohio State was an elite program, too, but Michigan played them evenly from year to year.  

There is no reason that Michigan can't be an elite program again.  They are very close now.  We are still at the stage where "next year is pivotal" every year, but the pattern is moving back in the direction of Michigan being an elite program.

jmdblue

April 3rd, 2012 at 4:00 PM ^

Freider begat Fischer who invited Perry and tolerated Ed.  The stories of Bill Freider playing blackjack with Butch Wade and Richard Rellford while not actually "recruiting" them were fun in the 80s, but troubling now.

IMO Michigan will not be in basketball what we are in football--a true long-term elite.  Those spots are already occupied by UCLA, maybe IU, and a small pile of blue and white teams.  That said, there is nothing preventing us from removing OSU, MSU, Wiscy as the best in our conference from year to year and making regular final four appearances.  How many and how often?  Who knows?  Single elimination and all that.  IU could stand in our way.  They are a sleeping giant and a great and/or cheating coach would win a ton in Bloomington.

lilpenny1316

April 3rd, 2012 at 8:59 PM ^

I understand he came in with the rest of the Fab Five, but he was Jalen's coach, not CWebb's.  And while he knew first hand what Ed Martin was all about, so did Brian Dutcher and any other established college coaches recruiting the Detroit Public Schools for other universities.  Perry Watson may be an easy target for some, but he was not found guilty of wrongdoing and his program at Detroit Mercy has never been accused of violating NCAA rules.

And I'd hate to burst anyone's bubble, but Ed Martin was also in that lockerroom during the 80s, while the Fab Five were in grade school and Perry Watson was still coaching high schoolers.  

MGoDC

April 3rd, 2012 at 12:27 PM ^

Almost none of those are realistic, imo. I'll go through my reasoning point by point:

1. The Big 10 in basketball is the best or 2nd best conference, and far deeper than it is in football. In football the Big Ten largely comes down to Michigan and OSU with a third team mixing it up on any given year (sometimes Penn State, sometimes Wisconsin, lately MSU). In basketball the list of schools that are in the mix on a yearly basis: OSU, MSU, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Wisconsin. Half the league is regularly in title contention (assuming Michigan remains in form).

2. Making it, sure. No first round exit is a ridiculous demand unless you think Michigan is going to be a #1 seed every year. Even #2s lose (Mizzou, Duke).

3. Ridiculous. List the number of programs that average a Final Four every 4 years. I'm guessing its under 10 and there's no way in hell Michigan is a top-10 BBall school (Duke, UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, MSU, UCLA, Indiana all come to mind as 7 schools where Michigan has absolutely 0 contention with, and I'm sure im forgetting some before we even get to the schools worth debating like Ohio State).

4. Probably the most realistic of all 4 points surprisingly considering it mentions a NCG, but keep in mind this is more often than Michigan plays in the NCG in football. Seems a bit odd you think our BBall program will be making the NCG more often than our football program.

snarling wolverine

April 3rd, 2012 at 12:33 PM ^

I don't think #1 is that unrealistic.  The key is that for basketball, there can be shared titles.  So whereas you can only have four champions in four years in football, you could have like 8-10 in basketball.  

In the last four years, how many different Big Ten schools have won a basketball title?  At least five: Ohio, MSU, UM, Purdue and Wisconsin.  Did Illinois win one as well?  They may have.

MGoDC

April 3rd, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^

Valid point, but there have been 8 outright titles and 2 years with ties in the last 10 years. I still think a league with 6 legitimate contenders that has ties is harder to win than a league with 3 legitimate contenders and no ties (OSU/Mich, plus random good school of the year).

snarling wolverine

April 3rd, 2012 at 12:49 PM ^

But we're not talking about some team in the abstract.  Now that we have a good coach and top-of-the-line facilities, why can't we be at the forefront of the Big Ten?  Not to mention that we have an extremely popular football program that is a great recruiting tool (a lot of these guys take their visits during football season).  I don't see why we can't be in that elite group at the top of the conference on a fairly regular basis.  And as the Big Ten gets stronger, the number of shared titles will probably increase.

Nick

April 3rd, 2012 at 12:35 PM ^

dominant is an adjective.

dominate is a verb.

people get this wrong all the freaking time and i know its not a typo.

i hate this.  it might be my biggest pet peeve.

WindyCityBlue

April 3rd, 2012 at 1:06 PM ^

Except for when I get attacked for it, I honestly don't care much about people's grammar or spelling on here.  Therefore, I don't care much about my own spelling and grammar. As long as message gets across. 

I apologize for offending you, but if makes you feel any better, I do know when to use "well" (adverb) and "good" (adjective). :)  

Young John Beilein

April 3rd, 2012 at 2:19 PM ^

I think there is implied consent for peer review.  And in our case, there is some kind of meta-peer review with the voting system.  If he didn't say it I probably would have, and perhaps the OP will come out a better writer because of it.  Also, peer review would look more like a criticism of the entire post's content, not a simple correction of spelling.  I would call his post proofreading.

umjgheitma

April 3rd, 2012 at 12:38 PM ^

that we will get the occasional 5* player but UNC, Duke, Syracuse, UCONN, UK, KU, OSU, MSU, Purdue, IU, Illinois, UCLA, Texas, Florida, etc. will also be doing so? Also, those schools will be bringing in better talent on the whole each year than M. Those are all top end schools not to mention the others (i.e. Butler, VCU) that just develop good teams through excellent coaching each year.

Did not think getting McGary and co. would create such high expectations so quickly. Lord help us if he just happens to be an average player....

oHOWiHATEohioSTATE

April 3rd, 2012 at 12:54 PM ^

It drives me nuts. These are good/realistic goals. Except for #2 they all seem obtainable. Leaders and Best fergodsakes. It shouldn't just apply to football. Not having high expectations is selling the program short imo.

funandgun

April 3rd, 2012 at 1:10 PM ^

We are going to be very, very good for the next several years.  Near the top of the BIg Ten and competing for Final Four spots.  The next big step is a nice tournament run.  At least a sweet 16 next year and a final four in the next couple of years would be great.  It is very possible with the talent we have. 

I love this coaching staff and what they are putting together.  It should be a special time in Michigan basketball.  Go Blue!!!

trueblueintexas

April 3rd, 2012 at 3:10 PM ^

A little history for those newer to MIchigan Basketball: Since 1939 Michigan has played in the National Championship game 5 times, winning once.  Those years, 1965, 1976, 1989, 1992, 1993.  Once the 60's arrived, the claim of playing for a national championship once every 10 years was not so crazy. 

When it comes to B1G championsips during that same time, Michigan has won 8. Those years: 48, 64, 65, 66, 74, 77, 85, 86. While winning one every four years is a little much, two a decade is not unreasonable based on past results. 

In my opinion, one goal that should be out there is making the sweet sixteen on a regular basis. This is the true sign of a consistent winner.  It means you are playing on the second weekend, and it is what programs like UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, etc, truly measure themselves on.  You make it to the Sweet 16, you have a legit shot at doing some damage.