• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Michigan BB Head Coach Position

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
HailToMichigan;806194; said:
How so, might I ask? It's obvious Beilein is an upgrade - he did far more this season, in a tougher conference, with less talent, than Amaker ever did.

Scorn the Beilein hiring at your own peril. He's been successful with every team he's coached. We're a long way from Brian Ellerbe here.
Click to expand...

The Big East was not a tougher conference than the Big Ten this season. Ohio State beat Georgetown (1 vs. 1). Wisconsin beat Pitt (2 vs. 2). Louisville was the only other team from that conference to win a first round NCAA tourney game, while the Big Ten had MSU, Indy, and Purdue all winning first round games. UC, Rutgers, South Florida, and Seton Hall were every bit as bad as NU, PSU, and Minny. I can't find any evidence at all to substantiate your claim.

Also, my only chuckle of the Beilein hiring is that I was hoping tsun would hire someone to make Izzo work a little harder up there. Tsun will still be playing second fiddle in their own state--no doubt.
 
Upvote 0
heisman;806212; said:
The Big East was not a tougher conference than the Big Ten this season. Ohio State beat Georgetown (1 vs. 1). Wisconsin beat Pitt (2 vs. 2). Louisville was the only other team from that conference to win a first round NCAA tourney game, while the Big Ten had MSU, Indy, and Purdue all winning first round games. UC, Rutgers, South Florida, and Seton Hall were every bit as bad as NU, PSU, and Minny. I can't find any evidence at all to substantiate your claim.

Also, my only chuckle of the Beilein hiring is that I was hoping tsun would hire someone to make Izzo work a little harder up there. Tsun will still be playing second fiddle in their own state--no doubt.
Click to expand...
Touche on all points regarding the Big East. Still, I think I can make the claim the Big East was tougher. The Big Ten's top two are better, but I think that's it.
- Louisville was better than Indiana (6 seed vs 7, ranked vs unranked).
- Notre Dame was better than Illinois (6 seed, ranked vs 12th seed, unranked).
- Marquette was better than Purdue (though this is the most arguable.)
- Syracuse was definitely better than Iowa.
- West Virginia and Michigan State - wash, probably; it's easy to scoff at winning the NIT but you don't win that by going through a lineup of patsy teams.
- Villanova was better than Michigan, I'm sure you Buckeye fans don't need much convincing of that.

After that you run into the Big Ten pansies, but the Big East has four teams left with winning records: DePaul, Providence, St. John's, UConn. No slouches.

So I think my original point is valid. Beilein took a team that was unquestionably less talented than what Amaker had to work with and accomplished much, much more. He overachieved, there's no denying that. He beat UCLA and NC State; two teams Amaker couldn't.
 
Upvote 0
the big east is also 45% bigger than the big ten. this season, the big east was not so much about quality as it was about quantity. if you dismiss the difference in size, labeling the big east as better than the big ten is accurate. if you don't dismiss the difference, this label is not accurate.
 
Upvote 0
OSU_Buckguy;806222; said:
the big east is also 45% bigger than the big ten. this season, the big east was not so much about quality as it was about quantity. if you dismiss the difference in size, labeling the big east as better than the big ten is accurate. if you don't dismiss the difference, this label is not accurate.
Click to expand...
I kinda do dismiss the difference. More teams doesn't have an effect on the analysis here. Still gotta play 'em. And the Big East might have five more teams than the Big Ten, but it only had one more losing team. That to me says depth.
 
Upvote 0
HailToMichigan;806223; said:
I kinda do dismiss the difference. More teams doesn't have an effect on the analysis here. Still gotta play 'em. And the Big East might have five more teams than the Big Ten, but it only had one more losing team. That to me says depth.
Click to expand...
Depth this year? Are Villanova & DePaul really that scary to tilt the scales back in the Big East's favor? (b/c I believe the b10 wins the top6 contest)

Great:
Georgetown < OSU

Good:
Pittsburgh < Wisconsin
Louisville > Indiana
Notre Dame - Purdue

Okay:
Marquette < Michigan State
Syracuse - Illinois

Mediocre:
West Virginia - Michigan
...etc
 
Upvote 0
HailToMichigan;806223; said:
I kinda do dismiss the difference. More teams doesn't have an effect on the analysis here.
Click to expand...
as i stated before, the big east might have been better by quantity, but it was not better by quality. the big ten put a greater percentage of its teams into the tournament (55% vs. 38%) and a greater percentage of those teams into the second round (83% vs. 50%). though the big east put two teams to the big ten's one into the second weekend, the best big ten team beat the best big east team for a spot in the national championship game.

furthermore, the big ten had a better non-conference record than the big east, with average win-loss records of 10.5-3.5 to 10-3.4, respectively. according to kenpom, the big ten had a non-conference sos rank of 6, while the big east had a non-confernce sos rank of 14.

the big ten versus the big east in head-to-head games:

osu - 2/0 (cincy, gt)
wisky - 2/0 (marquette, pitt)
indiana - 1/0 (uconn)
illinois - 0/0
purdue - 1/0 (depaul)
iowa - 0/1 (nova)
msu - 1/0 (marquette)
tsun - 0/1 (gt)
minny - 0/0
northwestern - 1/0 (depaul)
psu - 0/1 (sh)

the big ten's record against the big east was 8-3, with games between each level of the conferences.

you claim that indiana is worse than l'ville even though both teams beat uconn by only 4 (though l'ville was victorious in another match by 14; iu didn't get another opportunity, though). though l'ville may look better, there is simply not enough to go on to claim that l'ville is in fact better than indiana.

you claim that notre dame was better than illinois. the teams did not play any games against the other conference. i must point out, though, that notre dame was a 6-seed that lost to an 11-seed by 10 points, while illinois was a 12-seed that lost to a 5-seed by only 2 points. it is highly debatable that notre dame was better than illinois. also, notre dame finished with an rpi of 41, while illinois finished with an rpi of 44. this one is a toss-up.

you claim that marquette was arguably better than purdue. marquette's only game against depaul was a loss, while purdue's was a victory. moreover, marquette lost to msu by 12, while purdue's only game against msu was a victory by 24 points. marquette lost its only game against wisky, and msu went 1-2 against wisky.

i'll definitely concede that cuse was better than iowa.

i'll also definitely concede that your team was worse than nova.

as far as the big ten "pansies," their record against the big east is 1-1.

the head-to-head games were clearly in the big ten's favor. the games against shared conference opponents were slightly in the big ten's favor, though that is not clear. the big ten had a slightly better non-conference win record than the big east, with stronger opponents, too. finally, the big ten had a better showing in the tournament than the big east.

there is absolutely nothing i've found that enforces that the big east was demonstrably better, if better at all, than the big ten.
 
Upvote 0
my research skills are put to shame here :( this is rare.

OK, let me backpedal a tad and modify my claim: Beilein accomplished more this season with less talent than Amaker had. Harris, Sims, and Abram should have been enough to at least advance further than they did in the NIT, let alone maybe earn a bid to the Dance.
 
Upvote 0
Beilein is obviously an upgrade, I don't think anyone will argue that. Tommy had his shot and he failed, thus you're fired. The root of this is facilities, that's where scUM needs to spend the money now...
 
Upvote 0
HailToMichigan;806417; said:
my research skills are put to shame here :( this is rare.

OK, let me backpedal a tad and modify my claim: Beilein accomplished more this season with less talent than Amaker had. Harris, Sims, and Abram should have been enough to at least advance further than they did in the NIT, let alone maybe earn a bid to the Dance.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I thought the talent level you guys had last year was pretty decent. I just think Amaker was an awful game coach and developer of talent. With a decent coach, I think UM could've been a Sweet-16 team. They had talent and experience, which are hard to combine in todays NCAA.
 
Upvote 0
HailToMichigan;806417; said:
my research skills are put to shame here :( this is rare.

OK, let me backpedal a tad and modify my claim: Beilein accomplished more this season with less talent than Amaker had. Harris, Sims, and Abram should have been enough to at least advance further than they did in the NIT, let alone maybe earn a bid to the Dance.
Click to expand...
Here is another question for you. How long do you think it will take Beilen to get the team "up to snuff" if he can? 3 years ?
 
Upvote 0
coastalbuck;806436; said:
Beilein is obviously an upgrade, I don't think anyone will argue that. Tommy had his shot and he failed, thus you're fired. The root of this is facilities, that's where scUM needs to spend the money now...
Click to expand...
Agree 100%. Also I am not sure that Beilein can recruit the talent Michigan needs to be an elite team in the Big Ten.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top