His name is Walter Sharpe

I am amazed at the number of people who have grilled Joe Dumars for selecting Walter Sharpe with the 32nd pick in the NBA Draft. Granted, most of them are of the ignorant variety. I have yet to see a scathing review of the Sharpe-pick from a journalist, local or national. Still, the recriminations were so loud that you’d think Bill Davidson just announced he was moving the team to Tennessee. Apparently, Joe Dumars hasn’t earned the benefit of the doubt from the locals despite successful pick after successful pick.

I have to admit it I was initially pulling for the Pistons to take Bill Walker at #29. When the name, “DJ White” popped up, I was left in a stunned silence. There was only one player who I didn’t want the Pistons to take and that was D.J. White. Five picks later when the Pistons traded for the 34th pick, hope was renewed. I was standing in front of my TV begging for Bill Walker. When the name, “Walter Sharpe” came up on the screen, I felt like I had my spine ripped out by Sub-Zero. I watch enough college basketball to know at least a little about most American draft prospects. I had never even heard of Walter Sharpe. As far as I knew, the only player from UAB worth knowing was Robert Vaden.

While my initial hopes were dashed, my affinity towards Joe’s actions during the draft has grown considerably. I think he made a great decision to trade out of the First Round where money isn’t guaranteed. He admitted after the draft that he liked Bill Walker a lot but explained that Walker was not drafted because he said he wouldn’t be willing to play overseas next season. The Pistons don’t have roster-room for two draft picks to make the team. I would think Walker had a high enough ceiling that Joe would’ve made room fro him (i.e. the Celtics) but I can understand his reasoning. Plus, how bad would you want a guy who wasn’t willing to do what was necessary to play for your organization? Walker has a lot of talent but answering “no” would be a bit of a turnoff and I’m sure it was for Joe. Those who were clamoring for Chris Douglas-Roberts probably had a little too much of the hometown bias going on. CDR is an awkward player without a position. He does one thing well and that’s “play in transition.” Joe D didn’t miss out on anything by passing on him. However, none of that really matters. Douglas-Roberts refused to work out for the Pistons which ended up being a terrible decision on his part and potentially a great decision for the Pistons since it may have led them to Sharpe.

Since, the “Walter Sharpe” pick has been blasted by virtually everyone with a pulse in Metro Detroit, I think it’s time to dispel the notion that Sharpe is a bum. As I mentioned before, I watch quite a bit of college basketball. I’ve seen D.J. White play for four years. I’ve seen him play enough to know that he is too slow and lacks the athleticism necessary to be a force in the NBA. He will probably bounce around the league as a bench player but it’s unlikely he’ll amount to anything more than Malik Rose. When the Pistons initially drafted White, I felt I had enough background information to be unsatisfied with the pick. However, I don’t think there are 50 people in the entire state of Michigan who had enough background information on Walter Sharpe to justify the unilateral lambasting that has spread across the state. Nobody knows anything about Sharpe. All anyone knows it that they don’t know anything. Personally, in the event that I don’t know anything about something, my first inclination is to find out everything I can. That’s what everyone in Detroit should be doing.

Joe D talked glowingly about Sharpe after the draft. He sounded like he just pulled a fast one on the rest of the league. He clearly did his due diligence. Sharpe is a legitimate prospect. In fact, I’m convinced that he was the best possible pick at #32 in terms of “ceiling”. According to RealGM, “Sharpe is a great athlete who has the skills to play the game like a much smaller player. He can shoot the outside shot, has a good handle, and possesses great agility in the post. He is decidedly quick-footed and is an awesome finisher at the rim. Sharpe has a nice set of skills at the mid-post and could excel here especially well.” After reading that, my only question is, what can’t he do? The Pistons got a player in the same mold—and with as much upside—as Amir Johnson. Nobody knew who Amir Johnson was when Joe D picked him and that didn’t stop him from developing into a high-potential player. Sharpe has always been rated highly as a basketball player. When he came out of high school in 2004, he was rated in the top 45 in the country.

Sharpe initially committed to Mississippi St. before off-court problems ended his Bulldog-career. He transferred to UAB and managed to play just 12 games in 2007-08. Sharpe is a big dude. He’s 6’9 and 245 lbs. When he did play, he was dominating at times. In a game last December against Rhode Island—a team that was ranked for a good portion of the year—Sharpe went for 26 points and 17 rebounds. He also scored 16 points on 7 of 10 shooting in a win at Kentucky. He is #42 (in green) in the video below.



I’m not sure how anyone could ask for more skill out of the 32nd pick. Maybe people irrationally—and possibly subconsciously—thought Joe D was going to fix all of Detroit’s ills with this one pick. That’s the only reason I can come up with that would explain all of the venom that has been directed at Joe. The more I learn about Sharpe, the better I feel about the pick.

Plus, Joe has earned the benefit of the doubt by making very good selections in the draft (outside of the lottery anyways). Here is a brief recap of what he has accomplished in the draft with the Pistons:

2000 1. 14 Mateen Cleaves
2000 2. 44 Brian Cardinal

2001 1. 9 Rodney White
2001 2. 37 Mehmet Okur

2002 1. 23 Tayshaun Prince

2003 1. 2 Darko Milicic
2003 1. 25 Carlos Delfino
2003 2. 58 Andreas Gliniadakis

2004 2. 54 Rickey Paulding

2005 1. 26 Jason Maxiell
2005 2. 56 Amir Johnson
2005 2. 60 Alex Acker

2006 1. 60 Will Blalock

2007 1. 15 Rodney Stuckey
2007 1. 27 Arron Afflalo
2007 1. 57 Sammy Mejia

2008 2. 34 Walter Sharpe
2008 2. 46 Trent Plaisted
2008 2. 59 Deron Washington

He drafted Okur, Delfino, Prince, Maxiell, Amir Johnson, Stuckey, and Afflalo with an average draft position of 30. That is incredible. He has made seven good picks (the players mentioned above) to three bad picks (Darko, White, and Cleaves). The three “bad” picks all happened at least five years ago. Granted, Joe D has made two of the worst lottery picks in NBA history with the Rodney White and Darko Milicic selections. However, his success-rate has been extraordinary when you consider where he has been drafting from.

Anyone who thought the Pistons were going to shock the world with the 29th pick needs to brush up on their draft history. It’s not like Joe picked, say, Darko Milicic when he could’ve picked, I don’t know, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, or Dwyane Wade. There should’ve been no expectations going into the draft from a fan’s perspective. Anything more than that would’ve been unfair. Even if the Pistons had a much higher selection, it’s not as if there were superstars right and left. Seattle took Russell Westbrook with the 4th overall pick! Can you imagine being a Sonics fan right now? People can say, “OMG Darko” for as long as they want but Joe has a proven record of success in the draft and I’m willing to bet that Sharpe eventually adds to his track record. And if he doesn’t, does it really matter if the Pistons blew the 34th pick in the draft? The last four players who went 32nd overall were Gabe Pruitt, Steve Novak, Daniel Ewing, and Peter John Ramos.

Beasley or Rose?

The NBA Draft is on Thursday and the Pistons probably won’t have much going on. I suppose a trade is possible but I’m guessing Joe D will attempt to do his damage via a trade in July. There won’t be too many options at pick #29 but Joe D has snagged Tayshaun Prince, Jason Maxiell, and Rodney Stuckey with mid-to-late first round picks so hopefully he’ll come up with another guy who can contribute. Maybe Kosta Koufos or DeAndre Jordan will slide? Or, maybe I need to keep dreaming. In the meantime, the battle for first overall is going down to the wire.

Pat Riley has the #2 pick in one of the deepest drafts in recent memory and he’s acting as if he’s cursed—or so it seemed. Initially, reports surfaced that Riley was not enamored with Michael Beasley. Miami appeared to be so turned off by Beasley that it sparked one of the worst trade rumors in sports history. A Chicago columnist suggested that the Heat might be willing to trade the #2 pick and Dwyane Wade for the #1 pick giving Miami the chance to take Derrick Rose. Maybe the Pistons could trade Walter Herrmann for Dwight Howard? Now, reports are circulating that Riley doesn’t want Rose and really covets Beasley. I’ve never been a fan of “showing your cards” before the draft. For instance, it is widely believed that the Nets are locked in to picking Danilo Gallinari’s with the 10th pick. Why would the Nets want everyone to know that? Even if it was a leak, the front office needs to be tight-lipped about stuff like that. When I first heard the reports that Riley didn’t care for Beasley, I thought he was being careless. However, now that the same reports have surfaced about his disinterest in Rose, Riley has everyone guessing. That’s what a good GM should strive to accomplish.

If I had to guess, I’d say Riley covets Beasley. Sure, there is a big question mark surrounding his attitude. It might not end up being an issue but the uncertainty around it calls for caution. There’s also the fact that Beasley is not 6’10—his listed height in college—rather 6’8. Still anyone who watched him play at Kansas St. knows that he is a special player. In fact, he is probably the most offensively gifted power-forward I have ever seen come out of college. His numbers as an 18 year-old at KSU were astonishing. He led the NCAA in rebounding and finished third in scoring. He even shot 40% from 3-point range. There is also an underrated aspect of his game that makes him even more difficult to defend: he is a lefty. Anyone who has defended against a left-handed basketball player knows the problems that presents. Manu Ginobili is just one example. He finishes with the same move to the left, over and over again, leaving defenders shaking their heads. Right-handed players have difficulty defending left-handed players and vice versa. Beasley uses this advantage to get easy looks in the lane.

The player who Beasley compares most favorably to in the NBA right now—at least offensively—is David West. If you saw West in the playoffs, you know he is close to unstoppable. He has the inside/outside game that causes havoc. Beasley has more range and is a better rebounder. Any team looking to win an NBA Championship needs to have not only a low-post presence, but a dominating one at that. Eight of the last ten NBA Championships were won by either Shaquille O’Neal or Tim Duncan. The Pistons won in ’04 with the Wallaces. Boston won this year with Kevin Garnett. Check the resumes of the big-men in the NBA. Dominating big-men win championships. Teams with dominating point-guards lose in the second round of the playoffs. As good as Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Jason Kidd, and Steve Nash are, they’ve never won anything. They don’t have the same impact on the game as Duncan, Shaq, and KG.

The Bulls should be coveting Beasley, too. They have been looking for low-post scoring since I was born. The Eddy Curry, Tyson Chandler, Ben Wallace, Joakim Noah lineage has to be growing old. Their predecessors—Dave Corzine, Bill Cartwright, and the three-headed monster (Will Perdue, Bill Wennington, and Luc Longley)—weren’t any better. Chicago already has a decent nucleus. A Deng/Beasley/Noah front court with Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich in the backcourt is pretty damn formidable. Drafting Rose leaves the frontcourt weak and the backcourt overcrowded.

Then again, maybe all of this “Pat Riley doesn’t want Michael Beasley/Derrick Rose” is just a cover for a bigger plan. Rumors have circulated over the past few days that Miami might be interested in obtaining the #1 overall pick for Dwyane Wade giving the Heat the opportunity to draft Rose and Beasley. That would be a genius moving considering a). Wade’s propensity for injuries, and b). the affordability of rookie salaries.

"Yes" and "No" to NCAA Tournament Expansion

"No"

I’m torn about the idea of expanding the NCAA Tournament. On one hand, adding a few play-in games—or even a half-round—might bring more excitement to March Madness. On the other hand, it’s difficult to find 34 at-large teams that even have a chance of winning a 64-team tournament as it is. Many coaches support expansion but don’t be fooled by their reasoning. Coaches know that job security is tied to “tournament appearances.” So, it would seem that more teams in the tournament would equate to better job security. I don’t necessarily think adding teams to the current 64-team field would take away anything. I just don’t think it adds a whole lot either. Take this year’s “bubble” for example. By most accounts, the following teams are probably not going to make the tournament: Syracuse, Florida, Oregon, Mississippi, Arizona St., VCU, UAB, St. Joe’s, Villanova, Maryland, and Va. Tech. These are the teams that an expansion would be designed to help. But, do we really need a tournament diluted with these sorts of teams? With Syracuse’s loss on Wednesday, there probably won’t be a team in this group with an RPI better than 50. These eleven teams have a combined 26 victories in the RPI 50 and 31 losses outside of the RPI 100. That’s terrible. The NCAA Tournament is fine the way it is. Plus, people already complain that the college basketball regular season doesn’t mean anything which is a notion that I think is bunk. Adding weak teams might actually make that true.

"Yes"

While I don’t have a problem keeping a majority of the bubble teams out of the tournament, there is one thing I’ve always had a problem with. I don’t like the way mid-majors “crash the party” in a bad way seemingly every year. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense as it is to keep pretending that the winner of the SWAC should play in the NCAA Tournament over, say, a Mississippi-team that is 5-4 versus the top 50. Granted, I kind of like the whole idea that “even the little guy gets a shot” in the tournament but the little guy never wins. George Mason reached the Final Four in 2006 but it had a pre-tournament RPI of 26 and would’ve received an at-large bid anyway. That’s hardly the definition of “a little guy.” Last year, Belmont, Eastern Kentucky, Weber St., Central Connecticut, Jackson St., and Florida A&M made the tournament with a combined record of 0-23 against the RPI 100. Those teams weren’t just going to miraculously win six consecutive games in a stacked tournament—or even one. Everyone knows that. However, it’s a tradition that I’m willing to live with it.

What I’m not willing to accept is what happened this year with the West Coast Conference. Gonzaga won the WCC regular season championship. St. Mary’s finished one game back and, by most accounts, is a near-lock for the NCAA Tournament. Unfortunately for all of the bubble teams out there, San Diego—a team that was definitely not going to receive a bid—won the WCC Tournament. It’s very rare that a team from a major conference that wasn’t already going to receive an at-large bid wins the conference championship. That sort of thing happens quite often in the mid-majors. Last year, it happened in the WAC, A-10, and the Horizon League. Sure, it adds excitement. But, it also adds an element of unfairness. Since Nevada, Xavier, and Butler failed to win their conference tournaments against extremely weak competition, three “deserving” bubble teams were kept out of the tournament. Mid-majors—even the best—cannot be counted on to take advantage of their weak conferences come tournament time. We’ve already seen it happen this year as S. Alabama, Gonzaga and potentially VCU will get at-large bids after getting bounced from their tournaments. That number will likely rise over the next few days. One solution would be to give an exemption each time this happens. For instance, instead of saying, “tough luck” last season to Syracuse, Air Force, and Drexel, the Selection Committee would’ve added those teams to the tournament forming three additional play-in games. Their opponents in these play-in games could go one of two ways. One way to do it would be to pit the three added teams against the three teams who unexpectedly won their conference tournaments. The better way to do it would be to pit the three added teams against the three teams that failed to win their weak mid-major conference tournaments. Either way works better than allowing the mid-majors to squeeze out at-large spots.

Rams "playing possum"?

This wasn’t a good year for the Colorado St. basketball program and I’m not just talking about the men’s team. Both the men’s and women’s basketball teams went 0-16 in conference play. I can’t imagine this has ever happened before. It’s hard enough for one team to go winless in conference play. What do you suppose the odds were that either team would win a game in the Mountain West Conference Tournament? In 32 conference games, these two teams lost 32 times so I’m pretty sure the answer to that is pretty close to nil. What do you suppose the odds were that both teams would win a game in the MWC? Only Rudiger Gamm knows the real answer to that question but I’m pretty sure it was zero percent. Well, not only did both teams win in the MWC Tournament but, thus far, they are a combined 3-0 having beaten teams with a combined 25 conference wins. The CSU Women’s team even beat Utah which was 16-0 (!!!) in the MWC. I’m pretty sure a 0-16 team has never beaten a 16-0 team from the same conference. There are so many amazing aspects to this story that I can’t stop thinking about it. How do men’s and women’s teams from the same school both go 0-16 in conference play? How do both teams then win games in their conference tournament? How does a 0-16 team beat a 16-0 team? Maybe these guys (and girls) took “playing possum” to the ultimate level. Bret “The Hitman” Hart—and of course Gorilla Monsoon—would be proud.

The Dunk that wasn't so great

Tyler Hansbrough is a great player. However, the vast majority of college-level “big men” could’ve pulled off his “spectacular” dunk over UNC-Asheville’s Kenny George with the aid of a distance-creating travel or a "running start" as the announcer put it. For those of you who watched the game—or saw the highlight 68 times on Sportscenter—you know what I’m talking about. For those of you who haven’t, Hansbrough clearly traveled. Had he attempted the dunk—or even a shot—after just two steps—the number allowable by rule—George would’ve been all over it.




You might be wondering why I would even write something about this. Players get away with travels all the time. Well, Jim Rome felt it necessary to rip into George for letting Hansbrough “throw one down” on him. This is probably where I need to mention that George is 7’7 and weighs 365 lbs. Rome—without mention of Hansbrough’s blatant travel—mocked George on Jim Rome is Burning. Here is what he had to say:

“Top-ranked North Carolina ran its record to a perfect 16-0, hammering North
Carolina-Asheville 93-81. Obviously, the highlight of the night was Tar Heel
Tyler Hansbrough throwing one down on 7 foot-7 Kenny George! To quote my
colleague Bill Walton. Move your feet in the paint…you have to protect the rim,
big man. This is a man’s game. Played by men…competing for the ultimate prize.

George says that is the first time anyone has jammed on him in at least
three years. Uh yeah! You are 7-7, 360….it’s not going to happen very often. He
says, quote: “I saw him coming to the basket. I just kept my hands straight up.
I had him. I just forgot to jump.”

Of course, Kenny, you’re 7-7. Unless
you’re changing a light in the scoreboard, you don’t need to. My man…he may be a
Player of the Year candidate but a guy nearly a foot shorter than you shouldn’t
be putting you on a ‘poster’.”

Rome tries to play the story up by suggesting that UNC-Ashville got “hammered” in a 12-point-loss on the road against the #1 team in the country (NC won by 31 last year). Asheville didn't get "hammered" and George's 14 points, 11 rebounds, and four blocks were one of the reasons why. Yet, Rome's only mention of George was to lament him for allowing a guy—who needed a travel violation just to pull the play off—to “posterize” him. This is just my opinion but if a guy needs to travel to complete a dunk, that dunk should be a). barred from being called spectacular and b). barred from being on a poster.

Rome is a perfect example why “selling your soul to the devil” is such a bad thing. He rips on anyone and everyone for anything and everything. He has somehow built up “street cred” as a badass, in-your-face interviewer which is something I never thought was possible after the Jim Everett-incident (for the love of God, please click the link). I don’t mind a guy who speaks his mind like Rome. He asks difficult questions and doesn’t let people get away with clichés or “throw away” answers. The part of Rome I can’t stand, though, is exactly the sort of thing that inspired this post. Kenny George got beat by an illegal move on one play in one basketball game during one season of his career. Yet, Rome was all over him as if he had any idea what it's like to be 7'7.

George is an NBA-prospect. He is the best 7’7 player I have ever seen (which really only means he’s better than Manute Bol and Gheorge Muresan). He is bigger, stronger, and more mobile than Bol and Muresan. He will have an NBA career and it won’t just be as a benchwarmer. George has had to deal with acromegaly and two catastrophic knee injuries. This is a guy who should be celebrated, not mocked. That one play is not any more an indictment of George’s basketball "game" as Rome getting bitch-slapped by Everett was an indictment of Rome’s manhood. People who live in glass houses should not throw stones. And, people who get dunked on by a guy who blatantly traveled should not be ridiculed.

My Michigan basketball fear

It had never even crossed my mind once—not when Brian Ellerbee was rippin’ it up with Avery Queen and Josh Moore or when Tommy Amaker was going 5-35 in Big Ten road games against teams not named Penn St. and Northwestern—that Michigan basketball would not eventually catch up to—if not surpass—Michigan St. basketball once again. Sparty had a quality basketball program well before Tom Izzo took things to a new level. When I was growing up, though, Michigan had a higher-profile program. It wasn’t until the Ed Martin-scandal hit—which allowed MSU to recruit the state unfettered from 1996-present—that Michigan St. managed to reach elite status. Michigan has been out of the recruiting picture for 12 years and as a result, Sparty has virtually replicated in basketball the same advantage that Michigan has in football. Why would a big-time basketball recruit choose the uncertainty of Michigan over the certainty of Michigan St.? Well, most wouldn’t and that’s why Michigan has had a brutal time working its way back even to respectability. I always thought that once Michigan paid its dues with the probation period and labored through the requisite number of “rebuilding” years, it would regain national prominence. I have to admit that I’m not quite so sure anymore. In fact, I would have to say the odds are considerably against it. Ironically, the possible realization of Michigan’s permanent marginalization only became clear after it hired the best “X’s and O’s” basketball coach that the school has ever had.

I like John Beilein. This post has nothing to do with Michigan's rough start. I have been patient for 10 years and I'm willing to give Beilein as much time as he needs to get things going in the right direction. He was a good choice and I'm confident he will be successful. The program will likely improve to the point of being a perennial upper-half Big Ten-team. Once he gets the right players to run his system, he should have no problem replicating his success at West Virginia. Honestly, that’s all I want at this point. However, I don’t think there is any question that his system is built for less-talented teams. Beilein admits as much. Hiring Beilein was somewhat of a concession by Bill Martin and Mary Sue Coleman that the Ed Martin-scandal had permanently reduced Michigan’s status in college basketball or—at the very least—they were going to act as if it did. I don’t believe that anyone was under the allusion that Beilein was going to come in and out-recruit Tom Izzo. I also don’t believe anyone thought that Beilein was going to come in with anything other than his trademark reliance on three-pointers and his 1-3-1 zone defense. Beilein was brought in to implement his system. With it came a program-shaping tradeoff. The school traded the compromising ways of a “win at all costs" coach and the resulting elite status said coach could bring in exchange for a "by the book" X’s and O’s-wiz who will likely rebuild the program with less-talented players.

A similar—but slightly different—parallel is the situation that Purdue faces in football. It, too, runs a system to mask talent disadvantages. The spread has allowed Purdue to climb into the upper-half of the Big Ten and become a perennial bowl team after a number of dreadful seasons. However, because of the talent disadvantage, Purdue won’t ever be better than what it is now which is a program that has lost at least four games for 10-straight seasons. The spread can be unstoppable at recruiting powerhouses such as Florida and Michigan. It can’t and won’t be that way at Purdue which is why the administration has begun to sour on Joe Tiller. If it pushes Tiller out—a la Minnesota pushing out Glen Mason last year—then Purdue will surely win next year’s “Who do you think you are?” Award. But, that’s for another time. Nonetheless, Purdue doesn’t get good enough athletes to beat elite teams with the spread and thus there is a permanent ceiling keeping the program from being elite. Michigan may now face the same “ceiling” in basketball. If Coach K wanted to run Beilein’s offense at Duke, he probably could without a drop-off in performance. Michigan doesn’t have the recruiting presence at this point to recruit the best players in the country so Purdue football is Michigan basketball’s ceiling. The only difference between the two situations is that Michigan basketball could have a higher ceiling dependent on its coach. Purdue football really has no other options.

In a perfect world—a world that doesn’t take into consideration the negative public image that a scandal casts on an elite academic institution—Michigan would’ve hired Tubby Smith or John Calipari who, in turn, would’ve owned the PSL. Michigan would’ve then resembled the program of the 80s and 90s in which it won because of talent. Michigan was very close to hiring Rick Pitino in 2001 which would’ve reshaped the course of modern Michigan basketball. Pitino chose Louisville and Michigan didn’t recapture the recruiting momentum it badly needed. The only way Michigan was ever going to catch up to Michigan St. was to take over in-state recruiting via Detroit. Unfortunately, Beilein’s offense is so specific that it only requires certain skill-sets. Recruits realize this which means that the majority of the better players in the PSL will likely continue to look elsewhere or Beilein won’t look at them at all. The average highly-touted Detroit recruit is not the type of player Beilein prefers (meaning they aren’t the greatest shooters). That means he’ll have to put together his team by recruiting lesser-tier players or players who don’t necessarily fit his system. That will magnify the “Purdue effect” even more.

Michigan St. plays tough, physical basketball. It also gets out on the break. It rebounds and plays aggressive defense. It also shoots the three-point shot effectively. The way Michigan St. plays basketball is ideal. It can have a bad shooting night and still win. It would be nearly impossible for Beilein’s offense to have a bad shooting night and still beat an elite team. Michigan St. is versatile enough that it can attack the post and get second-chance points when its shots aren’t falling. Beilein’s team is set up where the inside-game isn’t much of a factor and second-chance opportunities are few and far between. So even if Beilein is able to make Michigan a national recruiting-power on par with Michigan St., his system’s design makes it nearly impossible to beat Michigan St’s versatility on a regular basis. Not being as good as Michigan St. isn't the worst thing in the world. The adage, "shoot for the moon and if you miss, you'll still be among stars" comes to mind. Using Michigan St. as a measuring stick can only help things. That's just not what I had in mind for the last 10 years.

This is a disappointing revelation on my part. I had always felt that if I just remained patient (which hasn’t been easy by the way), the day would come when Michigan’s recruiting classes would once again resemble the eye-popping classes that were commonplace back in the day. The talent has been in Detroit to make it happen. That clearly isn’t the problem. The list of players who have escaped the city over the last few years is sad. I don’t think there is any doubt that Michigan could’ve owned Detroit again—and potentially overtaken Michigan St. again—if it had focused on recruiting with a Tubby Smith or Calipari-type coach. Since that is what got the program into trouble in the first place, that was deemed undesirable by Martin and Coleman and I can understand why they would think that way. To borrow a golf phrase, Michigan “laid up”. That isn’t such a bad idea when you’re ahead. The problem is that Michigan was trailing. In the end, that approach usually ends up being good enough for a good—not great—score. I certainly hope I'm wrong but my fear is that everything I just wrote is true.

Jay Bilas needs an ethics class

Everyone says dumb things from time to time. It’s an inevitability of life. However, most people aren’t as transparent as Jay Bilas when doing so. Before I get into his illogicalities, let me first remind you that Bilas played and coached at Duke with Tommy Amaker. Everyone knows that but I figured I’d reiterate it because only a Duke graduate could provide us with the following comments regarding Amaker. Here is Bilas’ response when asked in an ESPN chat to compare the respective troubles of Michigan and Kentucky basketball…

"Michigan. They just don't get it. I think that John Beilein will do a great job, with time. But, it will take time. Michigan had a dirty program, brought in Amaker to clean it up, and he did that. Along the way, he won. He just didn't crack the NCAA Tournament barrier.“ (Emphasis mine.)

So, you’re saying it’ll take time? This is the most incoherent piece of biased rambling you will ever get from a paid “expert”. His whole argument is absolutely ridiculous. He defends Amaker by saying, “Along the way, he won. He just didn’t crack the NCAA Tournament barrier.” That’s like Charles Manson saying, “Along the way, I did some good things. I just killed some people, too.” You can’t just sneak that last sentence by without anyone noticing. The fact that Amaker didn’t go 0-192 at Michigan isn’t an indicator of his ability to coach. The fact that he “just didn’t crack the NCAA Tournament barrier” in five years or, the fact that Amaker went 17-3 against Northwestern and Penn St. and 26-56 against the other eight Big Ten teams, however, is an indicator.

Bilas goes on to say:

“Now, with good talent, they are getting their heads bashed in because they are starting over. How do you think those kids feel? Their heads are spinning. It is clear to me that one person needs to go...and that is Bill Martin. He has presided over this, and if the prior coach needed to go, then Martin should go too. If an AD's job is to put the pieces in place to have a winning program, then Martin is not living up to that end. Sorry, but that is how I see it."

I am shocked not shocked at all that someone actually gets paid for this sort of analysis but it's annoying nonetheless. First, Bilas insinuates that Michigan fired Amaker just as he was getting talent into the program. Yep, the Michigan basketball program was just about to explode after graduating four senior-starters with only one contributing upperclassmen returning. This year’s Michigan team is littered with underclassmen. It had absolutely no shot of winning this season under Amaker, John Beilein, or John Wooden. Just to clarify, Michigan does not have any more “good talent”—as opposed to the underrated bad talent—now than it ever did under Amaker.

Bilas then rails Bill Martin for putting the Michigan players through the unbearable situation of “starting over.” Let’s see, Manny Harris, Kelvin Grady, C.J. Lee, Zach Gibson, and Anthony Wright—all of whom are averaging at least 10 minutes per game—are all in their first year of playing time at Michigan. How can those players be “starting over” if they hadn’t even played a single minute at Michigan before this season? DeShawn Sims and Ekpe Udoh are sophomores. That leaves Ron Coleman—a senior—as the only meaningful player who is truly “starting over”. Bilas then attempts to play the “those poor kids” card by saying, “how do you think those kids feel?” Yeah, I bet they’d rather be losing under Amaker than losing under Beilein. I bet they’re all torn up about playing for a coach who took his team to the Sweet Sixteen in two of the last three seasons instead of a coach who had a .320 winning percentage against all non-Northwestern and Penn St. Big Ten teams.

Bilas obviously has had a beef with Michigan ever since it mercifully let his buddy go last March. This isn't the first or second time Bilas has defended Amaker or tried to put heat on Bill Martin. The fact that Michigan struggled in its search for a football coach was just the perfect opportunity for Bilas to get a shot in on Martin. It was clearly a premeditated strike. Bilas even admits that Beilein “will do a great job at Michigan” which I believe means Bill Martin did a “great job” in bringing Beilein to Michigan. Instead of reaching the universally accepted conclusion that 1=1, Bilas says, “If an AD's job is to put the pieces in place to have a winning program, then Martin is not living up to that end.” Apparently, hiring a coach who will do a “great job” is utter failure in Bilas’ world. In other news, the rest of the college basketball world was so smitten over Amaker’s availability that he ended up at Harvard.

Legitimizing Beilein

I don’t usually put a whole lot of stock in the decisions of a couple of high school basketball recruits. The University of Michigan is a big enough player athletically that rarely is it the case that one or two recruits will have a significant impact on any of its programs. Michigan’s 2007 basketball recruiting class is an exception to this line of thinking. Securing re-commitments from Manny Harris, Alex Legion, and Kelvin Grady will directly impact the legacy that John Beilein will have at Michigan. Harris and Grady are already on board. Legion seems to be leaning towards the same decision. For this post, I’ll be assuming that Legion eventually re-commits (If he doesn't, feel free to print out a paper copy of this post and set it on fire).

Much has been made of Beilein’s ability as an X’s and O’s wizard. Likewise, much has been made of his supposed shortcomings in the recruiting “game” (more on “the game” later). For those of you that can remember back into the 80’s and beyond, Michigan has seemingly always had a coach that was proficient in either recruiting or coaching (or neither) but not both. The best example of this was Steve Fisher. I’m not going to say that Fisher was the worst X’s and O’s coach ever but his ability to recruit far outweighed his ability to game-plan. Indiana outclassed Michigan with less “talent” on a regular basis during his tenure. A good portion of the local media has characterized Beilein as being cut from a similar one-dimensional mold.

Whether Beilein is actually a one-dimensional coach is still up in the air. His recruiting success, or lack thereof, at previously dormant West Virginia is hardly a reason to label him a poor recruiter. Nonetheless, that image is what Beilein is bringing to Ann Arbor. Even worse than simply having an image as a poor recruiter is that Beilein has also been portrayed as not having interest in recruiting the PSL. You can bet that every AAU coach and every rising high school star in the area have taken notice to those accusations. That reputation could prove to be crippling to Beilein’s success at Michigan if it sticks.

Enter Harris, Legion and Grady. There is no doubt that they are highly talented prospects. Any school in America would gladly take those players. So saying that they are important to Michigan basketball probably sounds obvious. However, there importance to the program in terms of fixing Beilein’s image is even more important that whatever it is they bring to Michigan on the basketball court. Beilein’s ability to keep those three from asking out of their LOI(s) sends a clear message to the Michigan high school basketball community that Beilein can relate to Detroit players and that he is very much interested in the Detroit basketball scene.

Magnifying the impact of keeping the trio is Beilein’s refusal to play “the recruiting game.” “The game” refers to doing whatever it takes to secure a commitment from a high-profile recruit. I don’t have statistics on this since “the game” is an unofficial existence, but I would guess that 75% of top 25 programs play “the game”. Think Blue Chips. Tubby Smith didn’t like “the game” which is why he is now at Minnesota. Beilein doesn’t like it either which is why he was chosen by Michigan. Beilein is on the “up and up” on the recruiting scene. His goal is to sell his style of play and the university. Had Beilein not been able to secure the trio of re-commitments, he would have seen his credibility on the local recruiting scene drop to nil. A coach that plays “the game” can turn things around without much of a rapport with the area coaches. A “straight arrow” like Beilein doesn’t have that easy out. Just think how much easier it will be for Beilein to sell the program with Harris, Legion and Grady in the fold. That alone gives Beilein credibility. Amazingly, “street cred” in the college basketball world is really all that matters in terms of recruiting. Most coaches get “street cred” by playing “the game” but Beilein might have attained it just by keeping three players that were otherwise planning on getting as far away from Ann Arbor as possible when Tommy Amaker was fired.

Michigan could have all but guaranteed success had it been willing to bring in a coach that entices recruits beyond normal means. John Calipari would have—and probably already has—played “the game” in Detroit. He would’ve galvanized the PSL behind the Michigan basketball program. Calipari knows how to get things done on the recruiting trails. That’s why Memphis (yes, Memphis) is a basketball powerhouse. Unfortunately, the Michigan Athletic Department—at the behest of the Michigan Board of Regents—can’t afford to risk another ugly scandal. Calipari may do things the same way that 75% of the other major programs do it but Michigan operates under a zero tolerance platform. That is something that Calipari cannot guarantee. That is why Bill Martin considered Calipari for all of zero seconds; and that is also why Beilein was his frontrunner possibly even before Amaker was let go. This will be important to remember three years down the road when Beilein inevitably gets criticized for missing out on some in-state players. Doing things the right way only appeals to so many recruits and AAU coaches.

I don’t want to understate the impact that Harris, Legion, and Grady will have on the basketball court. It’s just that their on-court contributions won’t be nearly as far reaching or as immediate as their contributions in terms of legitimizing the Michigan program under Beilein. Michigan will probably surprise a few people next year but it will be a difficult endeavor for the program to overcome a lack of veteran leadership and a bevy of players that don’t necessarily fit into Beilein’s preferred system. Michigan’s five best players (Sims, Udoh, Harris, Legion, and Grady) will likely be freshmen or sophomores.

I don’t want to cloud the “big picture” with all of the recruiting talk. The big picture is that for the first time in many years, Michigan has a basketball coach that has a chance to be proficient in both recruiting and X’s and O’s. It’s accepted that Beilein is skilled in the latter; Harris, Legion, and Grady will go a long, long way in proving his worth in the former. There is no question that the Michigan basketball program can be a force nationally when it's running at full capacity. I sense that we're about to see that happen.

The Big Ten Coaching Carousel

Minnesota fired a shot across the Great Lakes that could prove to be somewhat a double whammy for Michigan. I was as stunned as anyone when I read that Tubby Smith was leaving Kentucky for Minnesota. Smith obviously felt his job security and sanity at Kentucky was poor at best so he struck first before he had to add “fired” to his resume. The real coup here is for Minnesota. The Gophers, like every Big Ten team besides Northwestern and Penn St., feel that their rightful place is in the upper half of the Big Ten basketball standings. A quick look at the last 27 years of the Big Ten reveals why that might be the case. Michigan St., Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Purdue, and Iowa have all made the Final Four over that time. All nine of those schools have also made at least one Elite Eight appearance in the last 20 years in addition to the Final Four appearances. Any one of those schools can reasonably claim that it deserves to be considered a “basketball school” in the Big Ten. So it shouldn’t be surprising that Minnesota reeled in such a big-time coach even though it was widely suggested that the Gophers would have to wait for Michigan to act before it could begin it search.

So while Minnesota has struggled mightily recently, it clearly (and rightfully) views itself on par with Michigan. Hiring Smith not only keeps Michigan from hiring him (something that seems even more likely to have happened now that we know Smith was looking to leave Kentucky), but it also creates an even more high-profile opening than Michigan. Now, Michigan has to play second fiddle to the Kentucky coaching search. That probably won’t hurt Michigan as much in terms of who it brings in as much as it steals Michigan’s thunder. Three days ago, the college basketball world was focused on the NCAA Tournament and the Michigan job search (I was initially surprised at how much attention the Michigan opening received considering how irrelevant the program has been but you can chalk that up to Amaker being a Duke disciple). Now? Not so much. Even more important, the incessant talk of Flip Saunders going to Minnesota might—and I emphasize might—actually die down.

Kentucky will likely be looking for a bigger name than what Michigan is looking at. I suspect Billy Gillispie and Rick Pitino will be the hot names right away. Michigan likely doesn’t have to worry about Kentucky going after Chris Lowery. Nonetheless, any luster that the Michigan job seemed to have picked up from being the only high-profile job available has been squashed by the gaping opening at Kentucky. Well done, Minnesota.

Now, Iowa finds itself in the exact same situation that Minnesota was in just a few days ago. You will be hard pressed to find a university less distraught about losing its coach than Iowa is right now. Steve Alford is the kind of coach that is hard to fire since he’s young, somewhat accomplished, and endorsed by Bob Knight. Yet, Alford has virtually nothing to show for his time in Iowa other than a couple of miracle runs in the Big Ten Tournament. What is shocking about the Alford situation (and the Smith situation too) is that you don’t often see coaches leave a more high profile job for a significantly less prestigious job when their not named Frieder. Both of these instances happened within hours of each other. I do think that Alford and Smith probably saw the “writing on the wall” which aided in their decision.

The problem that Michigan has now with Iowa is that Iowa will probably be satisfied with bringing in a mid-major coach like Lowery. Minnesota was looking for a bigger name. Iowa and Michigan are probably fishing in the same pond at this point. Now that Lowery is out of the NCAA Tournament, you’ll probably see the Michigan coaching search heat up big time. S. Illinois’ departure from the tournament was likely the domino that needed to fall before Bill Martin went full bore on his search. The good news for Michigan fans is that there isn’t one “must have” candidate out there which is why Smith going to Minnesota isn’t such a big deal. Even if Iowa secures Lowery in the next day or two, Michigan should be fine as long as it makes a smart choice.

It dawned on me a few months back that the Big Ten will likely be the premier conference in America in 2-3 years. With Matt Painter bringing in a top five recruiting class at Purdue, the revival of Indiana basketball under Kelvin Sampson, the Oden-izing of Ohio State to go along with Michigan State, Wisconsin, and Illinois, the Big Ten is going to be ultra-competitive. That was before Minnesota hired Tubby Smith and Michigan hires someone better than Tommy Amaker. Let’s assume Iowa makes a solid hire; we’re looking at nine Big Ten programs either on the fast track to success or in a holding pattern of stability. The only school out of the bunch that could see its profile weaken over the next few years is Illinois. Bruce Weber is a good coach but he’s having a difficult time selling the Illinois program to recruits. This sets up for a rare phenomenon where all nine schools (AD, fan base, media) are elated with the direction of their programs. Simple mathematics tells us that nine programs cannot thrive in an 11-team conference all at the same time. This will set up the ultimate “survival of the fittest” in the Big Ten over the next five years. This should be good for Big Ten fans but a nightmare for its coaches. This should also spell the end of the ACC’s dominance in the ACC/Big Ten challenge within the next 2-3 years.

With likely upgrades at Michigan and Iowa, and the arrival of Tubby Smith, the Big Ten now boasts what is arguably the most impressive collection of coaches in the country. Given the importance that coaching plays in having a successful basketball program, this should foreshadow big things for the conference. Here is the list:

The Coaches in the Big Ten

Tom Izzo Michigan St.
Kelvin Sampson Indiana
Tubby Smith Minnesota
Thad Matta Ohio St.
Bruce Weber Illinois
Matt Painter Purdue
Bo Ryan Wisconsin
Bill Carmody Northwestern
Ed DeChellis Penn St.
Chris Lowery Michigan ???
Iowa ???


P.S. Does John Calipari actually teach his players to shoot as many 3s as possible when they’re down by one with less than ten seconds to go or, is that something they came up with on their own?

The Always Exciting Coaching Search

It’s never satisfying to root for a man to get fired when that man has put his heart and soul into his job. Everyone that follows athletics knows that the coaching industry is different. If you don’t do your job well coaching a high-profile college basketball program, you get fired. Other than a few low-level major conference teams (i.e. Northwestern, Baylor) you don’t get to keep your job by being average. So, Tommy Amaker is gone. I find myself engaging in a bit of a semantics battle with myself. On one hand, I am thrilled that Michigan basketball will have a chance to return to glory. On the other hand, I’m remorseful that a man who put UM first for six years is out of a job. To clear up any misconceptions as to which wins out in my mind, though, it’s 98/2 in favor of being thrilled.

In the two days since Amaker was fired, writers around the country have thrown out virtually every name imaginable as a possible replacement. Last month, I posted a list of the top 26 candidates for the Michigan job should Amaker be fired. Most of the names on that list are being bandied about now among others. I did not include coaches in their first year with their perspective programs (i.e. Tony Bennett WSU, Anthony Grant VCU) since coaches rarely coach at a school for one season. Bennett and Grant would have been in the top ten had I not excluded first-year coaches. Hopefully, Bill Martin has enough foresight to consider them and likewise, hopefully either would be willing to leave their current program after one season.

My preference for the hire would be a coach that is unique in his abilities (someone who has immediately influenced a program) and a coach that is relatively young. Mike Montgomery, Lon Kruger and Rick Majerus could probably come to Michigan and get the program running again. The problem is that fairly soon into their tenure, Michigan will have to go through another coaching hire when those coaches inevitably retire. The problem with hiring a young coach is the “Amaker Factor.” There weren’t many people back in 2001 that didn’t think Amaker could get things done. However, if you look at things more closely now, the Amaker hire was more of a prayer than it was a solid basketball hire. Amaker hadn’t accomplished much in his career. His big asset was his tutelage under Coach K.

If Michigan is going to hire another young coach, it has to look at what the coach accomplished on his own. In year one at VCU, Anthony Grant led his team to the best finish any school has ever had in the Colonial Conference as well as a first round win over Duke in the NCAA Tournament. In year one at Washington State, Tony Bennett led his team to a 26-8 record and a #3 seed in the NCAA Tournament. Washington State went 11-17 last year. There is a huge difference between hiring a young coach with a good pedigree and hiring a coach with sound accomplishments. Hopefully, Bill Martin has seen the impact of choosing the wrong one.

This would be my short list of candidates:

The Fat and Happy:

Billy Gillispie Texas A&M

Gillispie is from the south. He’s already created a powerhouse at Texas A&M. I can’t imagine he’d be interested in leaving that to inherit another underachieving program up north.

Tom Crean Marquette

Crean has a good thing going at Marquette. I would not be surprised if he felt Marquette was a better gig than Michigan. However, I don’t believe there is any doubt as to which program has the higher ceiling.


The Mid-Majors:

Gregg Marshall Winthrop

Marshall has been quietly running a fantastic mid-major program at Winthrop for some time now. His first round upset of Notre Dame validated his credentials even more.

Todd Lickliter Butler

Lickliter has Butler in the Sweet Sixteen with victories over Indiana, Purdue, Tennessee, Notre Dame, Gonzaga, and Maryland. He will undoubtedly be near the top of Bill Martin’s list.

Chris Lowery S. Illinois

Lowery is a young coach with a reputation for being a very good recruiter. He has S. Illinois in the Sweet Sixteen after storming through the Missouri Valley Conference during the regular season.


The Inexperienced:

Anthony Grant VCU

I don’t think Grant and Amaker are comparable. When Michigan hired Amaker, he was a “name.” Grant revitalized the VCU program in just one season with an athletic pressing defense. He may not be the next Coach K but I don’t think there is any doubt that his abilities extend beyond pedigree.

Tony Bennett Washington State

Bennett did one of the more impressive coaching jobs I have ever seen in college basketball. Washington State was 11-17 in 2005-06. Bennett led WSU to a 27-8 record this season in his first year. I’m sure there were some other factors involved (i.e. the return of injured players and the maturation of players) but what he did was impressive no matter how you spin it.


Like any hire, you want to get it right the first time. Any coach that I mentioned in my post last month could probably get the job done. This is a “shoot for the Moon and if you miss you still be among stars” scenario. Michigan has nothing to lose in terms of looking at every conceivable lead. I’m just thrilled that Michigan Basketball will be heading in a new direction. This is the point at which the possibilities for success are endless. I remember feeling this way six years ago. Hopefully, this will turn out a bit different.

It Must Feel Good to Decommit

There needs to be reform in college football recruiting. Despite the fact that even knowing recruiting exists may indict me on being a basement-dwelling freak, I can’t believe that a stand-up organization (sarcasm intended) like the NCAA would allow such absurdity to go on under its watch. Apparently the NCAA has taken an interest in said absurdity. Considering the NCAA has done everything it can to take away from the enjoyment of college football, I would not expect much to come of their “interest”.

Recruiting is a fascinating and weird phenomenon. At the very core of the weirdness is the fact that many otherwise rational college football fans engross themselves in the decisions made by 17 and 18-year old kids. I remember when I was 17 years old. No offense to my 17-year old self, but I was a moron in the nicest way possible. I can’t imagine other 17-year olds being that much different than I was in terms of maturity and understanding the effects of my actions. To think that there could have been thousands of rabid fans agonizing over my decision seems laughable. I almost didn’t even apply to Michigan because I didn’t want to write the essays. So yeah, recruiting is centered on kids who are probably just like that.

The other part of the weirdness is that, measurables and hyperbole aside, 90% of people that follow recruiting don’t know the first thing about the recruits that they invest so much of their hopes into. I know I don’t. Some call that creepy, I prefer foolhardy. Even though it seems like the negative emotions from following recruiting almost always offset the positive emotions, it is so hard to ignore the inherent lure to college football fans. It combines schools pride with unlimited potential. It is the draft of college football. Following recruiting is as irrational as following the NFL draft. For someone to try to arbitrarily draw a line between the two is ridiculous.

That brings me to the reason why recruiting reform is needed in the first place. Recruiting has been infiltrated by broken promises, negative recruiting, and decommitments. I suppose that has always been the landscape but things have escalated to a new never-before-seen-level. Everyone from the NCAA to the coaches to the recruits to the parents has played a part in creating a culture of dishonesty. There are a number of reasons why coaches and recruits manipulate and renege on their word. Without ethical rules in place to govern the way coaches behave in the recruiting process, you can’t really blame them especially when they seem to be acting in the best interests of their families (better recruits means more wins, more wins means better job security, better job security means more money, more money means happy families (at least in theory)). You can’t really blame recruits for similar reasons. But, the reasons why the reneging and decommitting are happening aren’t nearly as important as why the NCAA has allowed for such a culture to exist. With all of the rules the NCAA forces coaches and players to follow, one would think there would be a clear set of guidelines preventing coaches and players from lying through their teeth without consequences.

There seems to be somewhat of an unwritten rule in college basketball that coaches stay away from committed recruits (don’t tell this to Illinois or Michigan fans), it seems that college football coaches actually become more interested in recruits after they have committed. The world of college football coaching is very similar to the world of used-car salesmen. Not every football coach is shady. My guess is most are. What makes the recruiting scene particularly annoying for this Michigan fan is that Michigan’s football and basketball coaches are by all accounts “stand-up guys”. That inevitably leads to them being the victim of decommitments without benefiting from them (Jeremy Van Alstyne aside). They don’t meddle with committed kids. For every recruiter like Lloyd Carr and Tommy Amaker, there are ten recruiters that will tell a recruit anything and everything to get him to pledge allegiance to their schools. There are hundreds of rules that these coaches have to abide by. Unfortunately, there are no rules prohibiting coaches from lying or misleading recruits and vice versa.

Although the coaches seem to be the ones doing the most to facilitate such a distasteful environment, the coaches are certainly not the only culprits in this mess. The recruits and their families are just as responsible as the coaches. Whenever a recruit goes back on his word, that decision is inevitably characterized as “par for the course when dealing with 17 and 18-year old kids”. That pretty much excuses any prospective college athlete from having even the slightest bit of integrity. That also excuses the parents from having integrity as well. That reminds me of the famous quote from Jerry Maguire when Cush’s dad (Beau Bridges) says, “What you do have is my whole word, and it's stronger than oak.” Of course, that was just before he stabbed Jerry Maguire in the back and signed with Bob Sugar. And that is how things are unfolding right now. Without the luxury of a binding commitment until well after the average recruit has committed, coaches have to hope they aren’t being fed a bunch of empty promises by a recruit that may or may not be looking to improve his own position at all costs.

Even if being indecisive seems to be “par for the course” for young adults, someone has to be held accountable for a recruit not sticking to his word. I understand some of the arguments that kids are fickle and it is in their nature to change their minds. That is certainly a reasonable stance. If the kids aren’t going to be held accountable for their decisions, then their parents need to be. I don’t think it’s reasonable to allow kids to significantly affect the lives of hundreds of people (coaches, players etc.) because they aren’t willing to live up to their word. If an 18-year old signs up for the army and decides to renege on that commitment after being given orders to report to Iraq, he/she doesn’t have the luxury of decommitting. No commander is going to accept the excuse that kids are fickle and it’s in their nature to change their minds. In many corners of society, 17 and 18-year old kids are expected to live up to their word. College football should be no different.

Decommitting used to be a big deal. Now, if you don’t decommit, you aren’t cool. In fact, if you don’t decommit at least twice, you are falling behind the curve. Take the cases of Jerimy Finch and Cedric Everson for example:

Finch verbally committed to Michigan which undoubtedly led the Michigan coaching staff to focus their efforts on other positions. Well into the recruiting season, Finch informed Michigan that he was decommitting. He then committed to Indiana which undoubtedly led the Indiana coaching staff to focus their efforts on other positions. Shortly after that, he informed Indiana that he was decommitting again but would still consider Indiana, along with Michigan and Florida before announcing on Signing Day. Finch ended up committing to the only place that would do the story justice—Florida.

Everson verbally committed to Georgia Tech which undoubtedly led the Georgia Tech coaching staff to focus their efforts on other positions. After Georgia Tech had a shake up in its coaching staff, Everson essentially decommitted from Georgia Tech upon which he committed to Michigan State. Michigan State undoubtedly focused its efforts on other positions after getting word from Everson that he was in the fold. That was until Everson informed Michigan State that he was decommitting again to go to Iowa.

Some may argue that all of the double-crossing and reneging is just a necessary evil. I suppose that could be the case if the double crossing didn’t dually encourage dishonesty from 17 and 18 year old kids and coaches while having a tremendous impact on the job security of coaches that actually do take a more integrity-based approach to recruiting. I don’t want to give too much credit to one or two recruits. However, there is no question that coaches live and die by the success that they have on the recruiting trail. When a recruit decommits late in the season, he runs the risk of causing a school to come up empty at a position of need. If that recruit waits until most of the other highly recruited recruits have committed or until signing day to decommitt, then that school is left with nothing. That can be a crippling blow by itself. Imagine if a coach enticed a “silent verbal” to commit to a rival school with the intention of shunning them on Signing Day? As far as I know, that has happened yet. But considering the underhanded nature of recruiting, is it really unreasonable to think that might happen?

If you still aren’t convinced that decommitments can’t have a significant impact on the state of an entire athletic program, then consider what happened to the Michigan basketball program just a few years back. Joe Crawford and Al Horford decommitted from Michigan leaving Tommy Amaker with a one-man recruiting class of Ronald Coleman. Say what you will about Amaker’s coaching (I know I have), having Crawford and Horford over these last three years would have made all the difference in the world in terms of on-court success and recruiting.

That kind of thing happens all of the time in college football recruiting. Just in the last two years alone, Michigan received verbal commitments from Nic Harris (ended up at Oklahoma), Jai Eugene (ended up at LSU) and Finch (ended up at Florida) only to be bamboozled very late in the recruiting process. You can bet that in each instance, Lloyd Carr changed his recruiting emphasis after thinking the players were in the fold. When they reneged on their commitments, Carr was left scrambling to fill those empty scholarships.

Acknowledging that something is wrong and coming up with a solution are two different beasts. Most people can admit that there is something wrong in Iraq right now. Very few people can agree on a solution. I suspect we will see the same thing with recruiting reform. College football coaches (yes, even the ones that are doing the manipulating and cherry-picking) will scream foul play. Some will give suggestions on how to remedy the situation but it will likely take a long time before anyone can agree on the proper course of action. As much as the NCAA would like everyone to believe, it doesn’t take rocket science to come up with a solution. The answer has to start with holding commitments with higher regard. A commitment (even a verbal commitment) has to mean what it’s supposed to mean. What good is a commitment if it’s only temporary? If a kid commits to a school, there should be consequences for decommitting. I would have no problem with a rule that states a decommittment incurs a loss of a year of eligibility or at the very least, forcing the recruit to sit out a year. If this rule was initiated, it would make sense to allow for transfers after at least one full season at a school. The point isn’t to punish a kid for his entire collegiate life because of a regretful decision. The point is to force recruits to think the process through before haphazardly committing to a coaching staff. That sounds harsh but I think it is more than fair. This whole thing started because the NCAA has allowed an environment that encourages dishonesty. It can make up for its transgressions by punishing dishonesty.

The way things are right now, nothing a recruit says means anything until he signs a Letter of Intent. That needs to change. Verbal commitments should be given “official” status by coming with paperwork. Likewise, coaches should be obligated to keep a recruit once an offer has been given and accepted. Coaches should not be given the luxury of binding a recruit to a commitment without having to live up to his commitment as well. Making verbal commitments binding would essentially create an early signing period that is in effect all the way until signing day. Instead of signing day being the pinnacle of the college football recruiting season, it should simply be viewed as the last day a recruit can commit somewhere.

There also needs to be a rule discouraging coaches from contacting kids that have committed. With a decommitment meaning a loss of a year of eligibility, I doubt that we’ll see any decommitments. However, coaches should only be allowed to contact a kid after that kid decommits—not before. I have no problem with a rule that would allow the coach of the team that received the initial commitment to allow the recruit a release from his commitment to pursue other interests. It should be written in stone that no committed recruit is to be contacted by another coach. That, along with taking commitments in literal terms, needs to be the focus of the recruiting reform.

I know some people don’t like absolutes. There would be complaints about these reforms being too tough on kids. I don’t have any sympathy for that school of thought. If the kids aren’t going to be held accountable, then their parents need to be. The NCAA makes such a big deal about not violating their rules but they have created a breeding ground for the largest amount of ethical violations it has ever witnessed.

The outcome of these rules would hopefully be a more thought out recruiting process on behalf of both the recruits and the coaches. The recruits would be forced to do more research on various schools and explore all options since the consequences of a decommitment would be too harsh to risk. The coaches would no longer be able to rely on stealing kids from other schools to complete their classes.

I have read on more than one occasion the viewpoint that as long as coaches can leave whenever they want to, recruits should be able to change their minds whenever they want as well. I don’t have a problem with that thinking. There should be a rule that states that if a coach leaves the program before the end of the signing period, recruits that had committed to that school can decommit without incurring a loss of eligibility. That seems reasonable to me.

Michigan's Next Basketball Coach

Regardless of whether Tommy Amaker is going to remain Michigan’s basketball coach after this season, the fact remains that the vast majority of Michigan basketball fans are disgruntled with the state of the program. Keep in mind that this is the same fanbase that was more than willing to give Amaker ample time to make his mark. I can’t think of a coach that was given more time and excuses than what Amaker has received. I don’t think the rumblings from the fanbase are unreasonable in the slightest. The program is no better off in year six than it was in year one other than being five years farther away from the probation era.

Amaker’s tenure has been marked by a lack of preparedness and a noticeable lack of progression by his players. It is amazing how many times I have spoken to Michigan basketball fans who agree that Dion Harris, Lester Abram, and Courtney Sims were actually better during their freshman year than they are as seniors. I suppose an argument could be made that they were just overrated to begin with but that really makes no difference. Even overrated players improve over four seasons. Harris, Abram, and Sims are hardly the only players that have not progressed under Amaker. In fact, I can’t name a single player that noticeably improved from their freshman year. If that isn’t an indictment on Amaker, then I don’t know what is.

If Michigan is going to get back to its winning ways on the court, it will have to do what so many struggling basketball programs have done—bring in a proven winner. A proven winner is not necessarily the same as a big-name coach. They can be the same—but they don’t have to be. Michigan probably won’t have the luxury of bringing in a big name and that might not be such a bad thing. It’s not hard to find a coach that has won consistently at multiple institutions. Some of the best coaches in America are coaches that nobody had even heard of five years ago.

Quick turnarounds are not as hard as Amaker has made them out to be. It certainly shouldn’t take six years. It took all of six months before Bob Huggins transformed Kansas St. from an awful program into a serious candidate for the NCAA Tournament. Huggins might not be your “cup of tea” since he has had issues in the past but there are plenty of coaches like Huggins. Michigan took a chance in hiring Amaker because he hadn’t really accomplished anything tangible in his coaching career. He “supposedly” had the pedigree but whether he could lead a college basketball program to great things was not known. Amaker has been a coach for ten seasons. Look at any other coaching resume of ten seasons and you’ll know immediately if you’re dealing with a good coach or an average coach. It doesn’t take good coaches ten seasons to find their niche.

I cited a few statistics last week in a post that I wrote regarding Amaker’s tenure. Most of those statistics featured won/loss records on the road and records against other Big Ten teams. What I didn’t get into was margin of defeat. While Michigan is 5-36 on the road against teams that aren’t Penn St. and Northwestern, the average margin of defeat in those 36 losses is 16 points. Since Amaker took over in 2002, Michigan’s average margin of defeat on the road is actually worse than Northwestern’s. Since Northwestern doesn’t have the luxury of playing itself twice per season, its road schedule has actually been more difficult than Michigan’s. It’s one thing for a team to lose too often but it’s a completely different thing to lose too often by a gazillion points. My point here is that Michigan isn’t even close to breaking through. It’s not like Amaker has been stung by fluke losses. For six seasons he has had decent players but nothing has changed since year one. His teams either beat very bad teams or lose by a lot to good teams. Almost any coach could accomplish the same thing.

Michigan needs to hire a coach that can stamp an identity onto the program. That coach needs to be a coach that has actually led a program beyond expectations in the past. That coach needs to be a coach that has helped decent players become great players. The next coach can’t be a coach with “potential”. There are far too many coaches available that have proven the ability to do all of the things that Amaker was supposed to be able to do. I understand Bill Martin wants to reward Amaker for keeping the program out of trouble and for taking a huge mess without complaining. Unfortunately for Martin and Amaker, the fanbase has much higher expectations than a nice basketball coach leading an underachieving program.

Here is a list of candidates that Michigan should seriously consider if it decides to move beyond the Amaker era. I only included coaches that might actually want to coach at Michigan. I can’t see Jamie Dixon leaving Pittsburgh or Jay Wright leaving Villanova. Those are basketball schools that are legitimate championship contenders. I’m not saying that Michigan is a better job than every school on this list. I just think that these coaches would at least listen to Michigan if it called. There really is no harm in “shooting for the stars” but I chose not to waste everyone’s time with that. I also did not include coaches that just started at a new school like Anthony Grant (VCU), Bobby Gonzalez (Seton Hall), and Greg McDermott (Iowa St.) among others. Those coaches could be ready to move on to bigger and better places (whether Michigan is bigger and better remains to be seen) in a few years.


Michigan Basketball Coaching Candidates

1). Tom Crean Marquette Head Coach

Whether you like Tom Izzo or not, there is no question that he is one of the top coaches in college basketball. Crean is probably the closest thing there is to Izzo. In fact, Crean's time at Marquette is remarkably similar to Izzo's time at MSU. Both hovered around .500 in their first two seasons before seeing their programs blow up. Crean coached under Izzo at MSU. He has put Marquette back on the map. He was an excellent recruiter at MSU and continues to be an excellent recruiter at Marquette. Crean has won at least 19 games in each of the last six seasons including a trip to the Final Four in 2003. Marquette handled its move to the Big East brilliantly which is saying a lot considering how much better the Big East is than Marquette's former conference--Conference USA.

Crean also has a Michigan connection as he is Jim Harbaugh's brother-in-law. Getting Crean to leave Marquette may be a tough sell but it is certainly worth a shot. I don't think there is any question that Crean would return Michigan to its glory days.


2). Billy Gillispie Texas A&M Head Coach

I don't think there is a more impressive coach in college basketball right now than Billy Gillispie. Texas A&M hadn't had a good college basketball program in my lifetime until Gillispie came aboard. He is on his way to a third 20-win season in three years at A&M. The year before Gillispie arrived, A&M was 7-21. In Gillispie's first year, he went 21-10. He followed that with a 22-9 record and a trip to the NCAA Tournament. In his third season, he has A&M firmly in the top ten and in line for a two or three seed in the tournament.

Gillispie is no one-trick pony either. He took over the UTEP program in 2002. In his first season, UTEP went 6-24. In his second season, he took UTEP to the NCAA Tournament with a 24-8 record. This is the kind of coach that Michigan fans have been clamoring for. He preaches defense without yielding disorganization on offense. He clearly makes the most out of his talent as the cupboards were certainly not full when he arrived at UTEP and Texas A&M. The trick here would be getting Gillispie to leave Texas A&M.


3). Lon Kruger UNLV Head Coach

Lon Kruger is one of the top ten coaches in college basketball hands down. He coached Kansas St. for four years from 1986-1990. He took his team to the NCAA Tournament all four seasons. Then, he moved on to Florida which had gone 7-21 the previous season. After six seasons and a trip to the Final Four with Dan Cross, Andrew DeClerq, and D’meat Hook (Dametri Hill), Kruger left Florida as a national powerhouse to coach Illinois. In four seasons at Illinois, he led his teams to the second round of the NCAA Tournament three times.

After an unsuccessful stint in the NBA, Kruger returned to coaching at UNLV. The Runnin’ Rebels are once again among the nation top programs thanks to Kruger. Kruger won 15 games in his first season and improved to 17 wins in his second season. Now in his third season, Kruger has UNLV 10th in the RPI with wins over Nevada, BYU, and Texas Tech. Kruger has never failed to deliver a winning program at four different Universities. He might be the surest thing to guaranteed success that Michigan will find.


4). Mike Montgomery Former Stanford Head Coach

Getting Mike Montgomery to come to Ann Arbor would be a godsend. He is the architect of the 90's Stanford program that went to the NCAA Tournament ten straight seasons. Montgomery recruited with the best by stockpiling NBA talent. Montgomery is the kind of coach that builds a program for the long term. He makes the most out of his talent. He has had plenty of success grooming big-men and guards alike. He has won numerous national coach of the year awards and reached the Final Four in 1998. He probably won't stay out of coaching long so Michigan would have to let him know if they are interested.

5). Todd Lickliter Butler Head Coach

Lickliter has turned Butler into a national power which is certainly no easy task. This season alone, Butler has defeated Notre Dame, Gonzaga, Tennessee, Purdue, and Indiana. None of those five wins were at home. Butler doesn't have nearly the national recruiting reputation as any of those schools so it's clear that Lickliter makes the most of his talent.

In his first season at Butler, Lickliter went 24-5. This year, Lickliter has Butler on track for a 30-win season. This is a guy that can build a basketball program and keep it running even with second-tier talent. He has also proven that his teams can win away from home.

6). John Beilein West Virginia Head Coach

John Beilein has revolutionized the West Virginia basketball program. Before Beilein took over, I can't ever remember WVU having a competitive basketball team. Beilein is one of the best "pure" coaches in college basketball. Whereas some coaches are better recruiters, Beilein's assets are clearly found on the basketball court. He will be able to win with whatever talent he is given. The year before Beilein took over the WVU program, the Mountaineers went 1-15 in the Big East. That win total has increased every year under Beilein culminating in an 11-5 record in ’06.

Under Beilein, West Virginia has had no problem winning on the road. He is 5-2 in the NCAA Tournament with one loss coming by three points and the other coming in overtime. Over the last two and a half seasons, West Virginia is 12-14 on the road in conference play. Those 12 wins on the road in two and a half seasons are just two less road wins than Amaker has had in six seasons—and Beilein inherited a program that was 1-15 in conference the year before. In 2006 alone, West Virginia defeated three teams in the RPI 14 on the road.


7). Jeff Bzdelik Air Force Head Coach

Bzdelik went 24-6 in his first season at Air Force. That is nothing to be ashamed of but Air Force's rather weak schedule definitely had a lot to do with that success. Two years earlier, Air Force went 22-6 under similar circumstances. To be fair, Bzdelik led Air Force to the NCAA Tournament last season despite having one of the worst resumes of any tournament team ever.

So you're probably wondering why I've got Bzdelik so high on my list. Well, this season has been a completely different story. Air Force has seven wins against the RPI 100 (it had four last year) and that number could grow as high as ten before the season is over. Air Force has beaten Stanford and Texas Tech away from home and UNLV at home. For those of you that know the talent discrepancies that the Academies have to deal with, there is no question that Bzdelik's coaching has been fantastic. I'm guessing that if Air Force puts up another season like this one in '08, Bzdelik won't be the coach at Air Force much longer.

8). Rick Majerus Former Utah Head Coach

I suppose I would rather have Mike Montgomery over Rick Majerus but it isn’t by much. Majerus’ health would be a concern considering he has had weight and heart problems. On a strictly coaching basis, I’m not sure Montgomery even has an edge. Majerus made Utah a national power with a bunch of recruits that nobody wanted. He made numerous NCAA Tournament appearances and molded players that weren’t highly sought after out of high school into first round draft picks. He even led Utah to the National Championship game in 1998.

It would be ideal to bring in a coach that could stay for a while. By bringing in someone like Majerus or Montgomery, you’re probably dealing with a coach that may stay long enough to build a program that can run on auto-pilot like the Michigan of old—or may stay for just a few seasons. That is the price Michigan would have to pay to bring in a coach like that. That certainly would be an upgrade over what’s happening now. It’s just hard to build a recruiting presence and consistency within the program when you know there might be another coaching change in the near future.

9). Trent Johnson Stanford Head Coach

Nevada is where it is today because of Trent Johnson. He took over a Nevada program that had gone 7-18 the year before. Johnson was at Nevada for five seasons where he saw his win total climb every year. His tenure reached a crescendo in year five when his Wolfpack went 25-9 and reached the Sweet Sixteen. He didn’t stick around to enjoy the fruits of his labor. He took over at Stanford after Mike Montgomery left for the NBA. Johnson has kept Stanford in post-season play and is working on another NCAA Tournament appearance. The Stanford program is on the verge of blowing up once again as Johnson has an impressive group of underclassmen.

10). Dana Altman Creighton Head Coach

Altman was hired at Creighton in 1994 where he posted a 7-22 record in his first season. Altman proceeded to turn Creighton into an annual NCAA Tournament team. He has led the Blue Jays to the NCAA Tournament in six of the last eight seasons and he is well on his way to doing the same this season. Creighton has won 20+ games every year since 1999. He has also led Creighton to the Missouri Valley Tournament Championship five times since 1999. I don’t think there is a coach on this list that has done more for a basketball program than Altman. He has built a mid-major into somewhat of a national power. There is no question in my mind that he could restore Michigan’s place on the court as well.

11). Blaine Taylor Old Dominion Head Coach

Taylor is one of the more underrated coaches in college basketball. You don’t hear his name much but he has transformed Old Dominion into an annual mid-major power. Taylor took over Old Dominion after the program had just finished a 12-17 campaign the year before. Four seasons later, Old Dominion went 28-6 on its way to the NCAA Tournament. Taylor is on his way to his third straight 20-win season.

Taylor also took the Montana basketball program to new heights before signing on at ODU. In seven seasons at Montana, he went 142-65 with five 20-win seasons and two NCAA Tournament appearances. Taylor coached under Mike Montgomery at both Montana and Stanford.

12). Chris Lowery Southern Illinois Head Coach

Chris Lowery is a disciple of Bruce Weber. Lowery coached under Weber at both S. Illinois and Illinois. Lowery is only 34 but already seems to have the fine art of recruiting down. He has been lauded for his ability to sell his basketball program. In his first season at S. Illinois, Lowery won the Missouri Valley Conference Coach of the Year Award at the age of 32. He is 68-24 at S. Illinois and will likely have the Salukis in the NCAA Tournament for the third straight season.

13). Mike Brey Notre Dame Head Coach

Brey has done for Notre Dame what Beilein has done for West Virginia. Brey did have the foundation that Matt Doherty left but considering Notre Dame hadn't reached the NCAA Tournament in more than ten years, Brey had some work to do. Notre Dame's success wasn't as immediate or as substantial as West Virginia's but Notre Dame can be expected to suit up a pretty competitive team year in and year out. Most importantly, Brey has made Notre Dame an annual threat in the loaded Big East.

Brey had previously coached at Delaware where he compiled a record of 99-52 and two trips to the NCAA Tournament. Brey, like Amaker, was an assistant for Coach K. Although, Brey's success at Delaware and Notre Dame have been exceedingly more impressive than what Amaker has done at Michigan and Seton Hall.

14). Barry Hinson Missouri State Head Coach

Barry Hinson has put Missouri State on the map. The Bears won at Wisconsin in the one of the most impressive victories in college basketball in ’07. Missouri St. was robbed by the Selection Committee last season becoming the highest rated team to ever be left out of the NCAA Tournament. Hinson coached under Bill Self at Oral Roberts before taking over as the head coach at Missouri St.. While Self has become one of the elite coaches in college basketball, Hinson’s stock has been rising as well.


15). Dave Rose BYU Head Coach

The year before Rose took over as head coach at BYU, the Cougars were 9-21. That makes Rose’s first year tally of 20-9 all the more impressive. To prove that wasn’t a fluke, Rose has BYU in even better shape in 2007. The Cougars are in first place in the Mountain West Conference which features Air Force and UNLV. BYU owns victories over both of those schools in ’07. BYU has an RPI of 24 and looks to be headed to the NCAA Tournament at the very least as an at-large selection.

16). Seth Greenberg Virginia Tech Head Coach

The theme of this list involves schools that used to be terrible but aren’t anymore because they hired the right guy. Virginia Tech fits right in. Ask any knowledgeable college basketball fan to name one player that has played basketball for Virginia Tech and you’ll either get “I don’t know any” or “Ace Custis” as your answer. In fact, I have seen a handful of Virginia Tech games this year and I swear that the announcers mentioned “Ace Custis” in every game. It has been a long time since Virginia Tech wasn’t terrible at basketball. Unfortunately for Ace, Greenberg’s success at Virginia Tech likely marks the end of Ace’s stranglehold on all things Virginia Tech basketball.

Greenberg put together strong programs at Long Beach St. and S. Florida before taking on the task of rebuilding Virginia Tech. He has been successful at every location. He currently has Virginia Tech ahead of Duke in the ACC standings. He also has Virginia Tech in line for an at-large selection out of the ACC which was unheard of before this season.

17). Oliver Purnell Clemson Head Coach

Purnell is a veteran coach who is no stranger to turning around basketball programs. He took over a Radford program that had gone 7-22 the previous season. Purnell’s influence sparked a 15-game improvement in just one season. He then took over a dreadful Dayton program that had won just 17 games in the previous four seasons combined. Purnell guided Dayton to two NCAA Tournament appearances and a bevy of wins over NCAA powerhouses. Purnell had Dayton ranked in the top 25 in each of his last two seasons before leaving for Clemson.

Purnell’s most recent accomplishments have been his most impressive. When Purnell took over Clemson in 2003, the Tigers were the worst program in the ACC. Just four years later, Purnell has Clemson in line for its first NCAA Tournament bid since 1997.


18). Scott Sutton Oral Roberts Head Coach

Perhaps no coach on this list has been directly influenced by a more impressive collection of mentors. Sutton is, of course, the son of legendary coach Eddie Sutton. His brother, Sean, is now the head coach at Oklahoma St. Sutton started his coaching career as an assistant at Oral Roberts under Bill Self and later under Barry Hinson.

Sutton has the Oral Roberts steamrolling towards a second consecutive trip to the NCAA Tournament and a third straight 20-win season. ORU pulled off a monumental upset winning at Kansas earlier in the year.


19). Mark Turgeon Wichita State Head Coach

Turgeon’s win totals at Wichita St. have climbed every year since 2001. That culminated in one of the best seasons in school history in 2006 which featured a 26-9 record and a trip to the Sweet Sixteen. The Wichita St. basketball program was struggling mightily when Turgeon arrived in 2000. Now it is one of the premier programs in the MVC. The MVC is raided for coaches by the power conferences seemingly ever year. Turgeon will be the answer for a struggling program very soon.

20). Jim Les Bradley Head Coach

In 2003, Les took over a struggling Bradley program that had lost 20 games the previous season. In just four seasons, Les took Bradley from a 20-loss program to an NCAA Tournament at-large selection. In 2006, Bradley had ten victories over the RPI 100 including two shocking upsets in the NCAA Tournament over Kansas and Pittsburgh. Bradley is now one of the premier teams in the up and coming Missouri Valley Conference. Bradley is once again in the RPI 50 in ’07. I’m guessing that one more season like the 2006 campaign will be Les’ last year at Bradley.

21). Mark Fox Nevada Head Coach

In two and a half seasons at Nevada, Mark Fox is 72-15. He has won the WAC Coach of the Year award in each of his first two seasons. By the end of this season, Fox will have 25+ wins in each of his three seasons at Nevada. Fox was an assistant at Nevada under Trent Johnson who has since gone on to Stanford where he has continued that program’s winning ways.

22). Gregg Marshall Winthrop Head Coach

Gregg Marshall has been a sought after coach for a few years now. NC State was interested in Marshall to replace Herb Sendek. There is no questioning Marshall’s accomplishments at Winthrop. His teams have dominated the Big South conference winnings the Big South regular season five times and the Big South Tournament six times in just eight seasons. Winthrop is arguably having its best season yet in 2007 as it narrowly lost to Wisconsin in overtime and came within seven points of beating North Carolina. Winthrop still hasn’t produced the marquee wins that have solidified the programs in the MVC but Marshall seems to have his program on the right track.

The problem with bringing in a coach from a school like Winthrop is not knowing how a coach’s success in a very poor conference translates to a power conference. The vast majority of Winthrop’s games are against some of the worst teams in college basketball. The only way to know is to look at Winthrop’s results against good competition. The number of games that Winthrop has played against good competition is extremely small. If I had to make a guess, I would say Marshall could probably win anywhere. Remember, before Marshall came aboard, Winthrop was just another bad basketball program.

23). Tom Pecora Hofstra Head Coach

Pecora has turned Hofstra into one of the elite mid-major basketball programs. Over the last two and a half seasons, Hofstra is 64-23. Last season, Hofstra was easily one of the top 40 teams in college basketball despite getting hosed by the NCAA Selection Committee. Hofstra defeated George Mason twice in two weeks to end the regular season at 24-6 and 30th in the RPI. George Mason was an at-large selection in the NCAA Tournament where it made a remarkable run to the Final Four.

Pecora coached under Jay Wright for seven seasons at Hofstra before Wright left for Villanova. Wright has made Villanova a household name garnering a #1 seed in the NCAA Tournament last season.

24). Stew Morrill Utah St. Head Coach

Morrill has single-handedly made Utah St. a mid-major behemoth. Heading into the 2007 season, Morrill had a 190-63 record at Utah St. in eight seasons. Under Morrill, Utah St. has been to five NCAA Tournaments and is en route to its 8th straight 20-win season. Over the last seven seasons, Utah St. has a 77.8 winning percentage which is the fourth best rate in the nation over that time. Morrill also had winning programs at Colorado St. and Montana. He coached under Mike Montgomery and Jud Heathcote.

25). Darrin Horn Western Kentucky Head Coach

Michigan fans might remember Horn when he led Western Kentucky over the Wolverines in the first round of the 1995 NCAA Tournament. Horn is the youngest coach on this list (32) but he is hardly short on accomplishments. He coached under Tom Crean at Marquette where he acted as the recruiting coordinator. He was largely responsible for luring Dwyane Wade to Marquette. He was also a member of Marquette’s Final Four coaching staff in 2003.

Horn has increased his win total at Western Kentucky in each of his first three seasons and could very well do the same again this season. His career record at WKU stands at 77-38. He will be one of the top coaching candidates in America very shortly.

26). Larry Reynolds Long Beach State Head Coach

In Larry Reynolds’ first season at Long Beach St., his team was the worst team in the Big West. Five seasons later, Long Beach St. is, far and away, the best team in the conference. Reynolds has his team on the cusp of the RPI 100 (101) and in line for a 20-win season and an NCAA Tournament bid. Reynolds has had tremendous success at the D-II level before coming to LBSU. Here is an article discussing LBSU’s rise under Reynolds.


Quick Fix for the Short Term

There are a number of veteran coaches that could help Michigan in the short term. George Mason’s Jim Larranaga, Davidson’s Bob McKillop, Holy Cross’ Ralph Willard, Cal. St. Fullerton’s Bob Burton and, former Washington State coach, Dick Bennett come to mind. Hiring a younger coach would be the ideal situation.

The Tubby Smith Option

Tubby Smith Kentucky Head Coach

I don’t think Tubby Smith would ever leave Kentucky for Michigan but I do think his time at Kentucky might be limited. Kentucky fans aren’t happy with the success (or lack thereof) Smith has had in Lexington. Smith is a superb recruiter and a more than adequate basketball coach. I don’t think he is the end all but I would not be upset if he somehow ended up in Ann Arbor.