John Beilein in elite recruiting company
Michael Spath of Rivals posted an interesting article / factoid this morning:
https://michigan.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1765528
Beilein is one of just 25 active D1 coaches to secure at least three 5-star recruits in the Rivals Era (Battle is obviously the third).
Apart from Beilein, the list is very interesting. For one, I'm very, very surprised that Thad Matta is so high. I didn't realize he was such a prolific recruiter with 10 5-Stars. It's also interesting to see which coaches have secured multiple 5-Stars in just a few short years. For instance, John Pastner of Memphis has secured 5 of them since 2010.
Also, while Calipari is at the top of the list, he isn't necessarily in a class by himself. Coach K has (only) 4 fewer 5-Stars, and Self and Roy Williams are within 10. While 10 is a lot, it's telling that the gap between Williams and the next guy (Barnes - 5 fewer) is actually greater than the gap between Calipari and Coach K.
As if it wasn't already obvious, Duke, UNC, Kansas, and Kentucky are clearly the blue-bloods of college basketball and average a 5-Star each year or better.
Beilein, what a fantastic coach, and a hell of a good guy!
Pretty amazing that Rick Barnes recruited at that clip at Texas. Why they wanted to get rid of him is beyond me.
Because he is the single worst NCAA tournament coach in the history of college basketball.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/tom-izzo-michigan-state-coaching-final-four/
Him and Thad Matta are co-presidents of the "Doing Less with More" club.
Seriously. I mean, some people think you're actually supposed to DO something with that talent and, like, win important games, but those people are clearly misguided.
Who's the third? Battle, McGary and......someone at WVU?
Irvin
McGary actually ended up a 4-star to Rivals. It's Battle, Irvin, Robinson.
How many guys who are his size have his skills? I would take Mitch McGary 2.0 over the second coming of any other player Coach Beilein has had at Michigan.
IIRC McGary was hampered by a foot injury his senior year that greatly limited his effectiveness. He was the #2 overall on one site, but the injury dropped him a good bit.
Also IIRC, I think he was #3 to Rivals when he committed but whatever injury he had led him to finish in the 20-25 range or something
People were also worried that he was a year older than all the kids he was playing against.
After getting dominated by Nerlens Noel in AAU. That made everyone pump the breaks on him as a top 5-10 player in the class.
Yup and McGary + Chatman were 2-3 spots from 5 star status on the composite.
Didn't realize GRIII got that fifth star. Thanks for the info.
over a coach who brings in 5* talent but fails to develop and harness them.
I wish we could have a Beilein that also is reeling in classes like Calipari is, but I'll gladly take what we've got over Crean or Matta any day of the year. Beilein's clubs have way out performed those guys despite what the recruiting rankings say should be happening
Nice article thanks for providing the link. It would be great to see the correlation between 5 star recruits and win-loss record, as well as performance in the NCAA tourney. From other threads, I am sure that Beilein far out-performs the recruiting stars of the guys on his team. As an example, Thad Matta, who tops the Big 10 with 10 five star recruits, hasn't had success at a far higher level than Beilein. It is obvious that Beilein has done as well or better with guys not as well recognized by recruiting stars.
The piece in today's Det News opines that Battle is a critical and important recruit for Beilein. Not only does he improve the class and the play. When one five star signs, it encourages other five star recruits to look at your school. We see this all the time with Kentucky and Duke. Actually, this was part of the reason given for Jaylen Brown going to Cal. If Coach Beilein can build on this with one, better yet two, five star recruits in 2017, we'd be well on the way. I'd love to see five star Brian Bowen from Saginaw Arthur Hill get an offer and join the class.
But Beilein is not good at recruiting.
/s
Does this really put him in elite recruiting company? The top of that list is elite recruiting company, but basically that list is anyone that coaches a decent team for the last 10 years. It's almost hard to think of a good coach who isn't on that list. Being the 25th best active coach at something doesn't make you elite.
Comparing to all 351 schools is pointless and finishing tied for 20th doesn't make you elite. This is like saying Michigan football had an elite season in 2012 because we finished in the top 25 (after and 8-5 season).
Dumb title/conclusion based on the data presented.
Elite would be the double digit club up at top.
We still have a ways to go. Its tough to compare bc the coaches on there didn't all start at their power 5 programs at the same time. I'd imagine Cal has done most of his damage since arriving at UK while Coach K has been a duke the entire period.
Are a pretty limited way of evaluating recruiting. Brad Stevens had zero - doesn't make him equal to the head coach at whatever the 350th best school in the NCAA is.
Where's the list of coaches who have turned 5* kids into, at best, adequate college players? Izzo has to be at the top of that one.
I disagree. His results developing talent are mediocre. Beilein is much better, so we are in a position to mock his talent development results.
or win games? Sure their is some correlation, but I would take the wins every time.
The point is we are developing guys that were nowhere to be seen on NBA radars.
Mitch McGary is the only player that really had any NBA hype going into college.
I don't understand how we wins game if guys don't develop.
Is Beilein supposed to hold them back in some way?
We won big with guys no one wanted besides Mitch McGary.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Considering Mitch McGary was the only NBA hyped player, I think Beilein had a huge role in getting largely no name guys (as far as the NBA radar) to the NBA.
Stauskas and Valentine is a prime example. Beilein actually wanted Valentine and settled on Stauskas. Both similarly ranked. One is already in the NBA, the other will likley never play in the NBA.
of turning a 5* into a viaable 1st round NBA prospect. That's a fair criticism on Izzo on his inability to keep the 5* prospects continue their ascent towards NBA. Most of them are 4 year players which is not good for Izzo in terms of player development. You want 1-3 year players and churn them into NBA 1st round draft picks. This is where JB has the advantage over Izzo. 4 year players tend to be really good college players but not quite good enough for NBA.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
Uhhh, 7 final fours and no players going to NBA...yeah, I'll pass on being a great runner-up who cannot get "runner-up" talent to the next level. I will take one runner-up season with ALL five starters in the NBA, though. At some point, it will all come together for Beilein. As for "gary coleman izzo", NO kid with an ounce of NBA talent should ever play for that guy.
First let me preface that Izzo is a ridiculously good tournment coach. His record on the 2nd day of NCAAs is ridiculous. But his player retention in this era of 1 and 2 and done is completely atypical for the type of players MSU generally recruits - they get some 5 stars mixed in with a lot of top 100 type players. Almost none leave for the NBA early. Gary Harris was the only one in a decade.
Imagine if only 1 player (Burke) left UM early the past 7 years and we retained THJ, Nik, Mitch, GR3 for their 4 full years. How many more final 4s would Beilen have had in just 3 years?
Izzo has a great thing going on - he wins a lot and he does so by keeping almost everyone arround for 4 years. Yet all we hear in HS recruiting is how guys want to go the league as quickly as possible yet they still go to Izzo in droves. (aside from a 2 year stint recently when he went after the Kansas, Duke, UK types and got stymied). So he still is able to somehow pitch these HS recruits to come play for him despite taking almost no one early to the league.
Great example is Nik S v Denzel Valentine. They were identically ranked recruits - both around #80. One is a typical Beilein guy now - a good, not great HS talent, who flourished in his system and left early. The other is a typical Izzo guy - a good, not great HS talent who provides an Izzo team with upperclassmen leadership but is never quite good enough to make the leap to the next level. But more than good enough to be a 2nd/3rd team all conference and provide a ton of leadership, savvy, experience etc.
Experience matters especially now in this era of college bball. Izzo is constantly taking a bunch of guys ranked 20-100 in rankings into tournaments with a bunch of those guys as JRs and SRs. He is often playing teams with similar talent (or less) with a bunch of FR/SO leading the way.
Last year MSU called it a rebuilding year.... that was with a starting lineup for most of the year of 2 SRs and 3 JRs. That just doesnt happen at other "elite programs" - those guys leave early. You dont have a 4 year career from a 5 star Adrian Payne and Mcdonalds All american Brandon Dawson at other programs. So he has pulled off a weird miracle, getting high level talent despite not sending them to the league early like almost every kid wants now.
Again he is a great tournament coach but player development lacks. One can make a valid argument what is better for a college program because at the end of the day wins and losses and NCAAs count for the college more than early NBA departures. But usually you get a higher calibar of player by sending guys to the NBA. Somehow he has been able to continue to get high level of HS players without sending them to the NBA early.
I ripped on his ability to turn elite players into pro prospects. At no point am I discrediting how much he wins. And as someone who attended that school, I can tell you that rooting for his teams is like rooting for boring paint to dry. If there is a more insufferable fanbase given they've won 2 NCs in the past 50+years (and yes, I know that's the argument about UM football), I don't know one. Maybe IU.
To OP, I think it is well know Thad Matta gets load of talent - we cite him on every "Beilein can't recruit" thread as a guy who is a master salesman. I wouldnt mind a Thad Matta Jr on the staff as an assistant to do nothing but recruit.
It is generally known Barnes Howland and Wright do the least with most. That is why Barnes and Howland lost their jobs and why Wright is constantly a big tease and why you never pick Nova to go far in a tournament. Matta has done better than those 3 in terms of results but based on talent they get OSU should be even doing better.
The one who suprised me is Sean Miller - I know Zona recruits well but 12 guys since 2010 is better than I thought. He has a John Beilein problem too in that he loses guys to the NBA early every year but more of his guys were very highly ranked than Beilein's.
Gottfried and Hamilton actually surprised me the most on this list.