I would agree that we became an elite team in 2013 because we upgraded our talent.
Guys like Douglas and Novak were very important to the culture of Michigan basketball, and made some huge shots and plays during their career. They were also a key part of the 2012 Big Ten title team. With that said, going from Novak to GR3, and Douglas to Nik, were two huge upgrades in raw talent that allowed us to make a deep run in the tourney.
There is, however, a middle ground. Let's not forget that when we made that incredible run, we were still an extremely *young* team. Among the top 8 rotation guys on the title team, 6 were underclassmen (Trey, Nik, Glenn, Mitch, Caris, and Spike). Same thing last year - only Morgan and Horford were upperclassmen, while Nik, Spike, Glenn, Caris, Derrick, and Zak were all sophomores or freshmen.
For those people worried that we are not getting "elite" recruits, I get it. On the other hand, there are plenty of teams that win with veteran players who may not have been "elite" recruits, but who have developed into very good players. MSU this year was a good example of that. Others would be Notre Dame, Iowa State, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In my estimation, the overall level of talent and athleticism on this team far surpasses what we had in 2012, when we shared the Big Ten title. It's just that, instead of our guys being ready for the NBA after one and two years (remember, after their freshmen years, all of Trey, Glenn and Mitch strongly considered going pro), our guys are likely going to take a little longer to develop. I see no reason why our base talent isn't good enough to make a deep run in the tourney in either 2015 or, at worst, 2016.
I'm not suggesting we should just stop recruiting top guys. As long as they show serious interest, you have to do it. But I am suggesting it is a fallacy that the only way we can win is by getting "elite" recruits. Fact is, we've never yet seen a John Beilein team comprised of top 50-150 ranked players, the majority of whom are also *upperclassmen.*
To put it in simple terms, I'm willing to bet a senior Derrick Walton is as good as a freshman Derryck Thornton, and a senior Zak Irvin is as good as a freshman Josh Langford.
It's great to get elite guys - the downside is they stay 1-2 years and then you have to replace them. I don't think it would be a bad thing if we start getting guys who stay in college longer, and build some depth behind those guys with similar players, and then maybe find one elite guy in any given year who fits what we do (like Jaylen Brown would have been this year).
Guys like Douglas and Novak were very important to the culture of Michigan basketball, and made some huge shots and plays during their career. They were also a key part of the 2012 Big Ten title team. With that said, going from Novak to GR3, and Douglas to Nik, were two huge upgrades in raw talent that allowed us to make a deep run in the tourney.
There is, however, a middle ground. Let's not forget that when we made that incredible run, we were still an extremely *young* team. Among the top 8 rotation guys on the title team, 6 were underclassmen (Trey, Nik, Glenn, Mitch, Caris, and Spike). Same thing last year - only Morgan and Horford were upperclassmen, while Nik, Spike, Glenn, Caris, Derrick, and Zak were all sophomores or freshmen.
For those people worried that we are not getting "elite" recruits, I get it. On the other hand, there are plenty of teams that win with veteran players who may not have been "elite" recruits, but who have developed into very good players. MSU this year was a good example of that. Others would be Notre Dame, Iowa State, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
In my estimation, the overall level of talent and athleticism on this team far surpasses what we had in 2012, when we shared the Big Ten title. It's just that, instead of our guys being ready for the NBA after one and two years (remember, after their freshmen years, all of Trey, Glenn and Mitch strongly considered going pro), our guys are likely going to take a little longer to develop. I see no reason why our base talent isn't good enough to make a deep run in the tourney in either 2015 or, at worst, 2016.
I'm not suggesting we should just stop recruiting top guys. As long as they show serious interest, you have to do it. But I am suggesting it is a fallacy that the only way we can win is by getting "elite" recruits. Fact is, we've never yet seen a John Beilein team comprised of top 50-150 ranked players, the majority of whom are also *upperclassmen.*
To put it in simple terms, I'm willing to bet a senior Derrick Walton is as good as a freshman Derryck Thornton, and a senior Zak Irvin is as good as a freshman Josh Langford.
It's great to get elite guys - the downside is they stay 1-2 years and then you have to replace them. I don't think it would be a bad thing if we start getting guys who stay in college longer, and build some depth behind those guys with similar players, and then maybe find one elite guy in any given year who fits what we do (like Jaylen Brown would have been this year).
