Welcome to The Mo Bamba Experience
Brendan Quinn with a nice piece on Mo Bamba today. Not much new info regarding his thoughts on Michigan, but it's a good look into the type of person he is. It's interesting even if you think there's zero chance he comes here.
Seems like a different dude, in a really good way. He even somehow pulls off referring to himself in the third person.
Also: kudos to Quinn for doing yeoman's work on the basketball beat lately.
Well there's no way I won't have La Bamba stuck in my head all day now
Ok now I'm going to be really sad if/when he doesn't come here. Student section La Bambas for a year would be so fun and other fans would get so, so mad.
yo no soy power forward
Have you learned nothing from the Najee Harris recruitment?
I have the Seinfeld ethos when it comes to recruiting.
March 29th, 2017 at 10:10 AM ^
Jerry caved by the end of the episode.
whats a najee harris?
March 29th, 2017 at 10:49 AM ^
You know, you're right.
*drives to Detroit Metro*
*begins to watch domestic arrivals monitors*
March 29th, 2017 at 11:03 AM ^
nothing from Najee recruitment, but a lot from the Solomon recruitment . . . .
For those of us who do not follow basketball recruiting, what are the cycles like? Bamba a 17 or 18 recruit? when does he need to announce by? signing day?
2017 recruit. The April signing period begins in two weeks.
He'll announce whenever he wants and the school he picks will have space. A guy this good gets his own timeline.
March 29th, 2017 at 11:22 AM ^
...bitches. Just ask Chesney Everyweather.
I'm not sure he can do much left handed. Not that it matters when you have a 7'8 wingspan and active hands.
I was hoping he would have been quoted as saying " !@#$ Michigan." That way we would have all known Michigan would have had a great shot at getting his committment.
His number needs to be 5.
"Now introducing.... MO BAMBA #5...."
.... I'll see myself out.
A big time job writing for a national org sooner or later. He's the best journalist for any of the Michigan newspapers and to be honest, I don't think it's that close.
The sheer amount of research he does into his articles is insane.
March 29th, 2017 at 11:11 AM ^
He has good tone and style, too.
I've been impressed lately but I honestly haven't been paying as much attention; Baumgardner had turned me off of MLive with his one sentence paragraphs, lazy license with parentheticals in quotes and general "I'll just write up other outlets instead of having original thoughts" approach (all too common in sportswriting all around to be fair). The front page links to Quinn's stuff recently brought be back to the site.
I generally feel underserved with the mass media Michigan coverage (thank god we have this place), but it's been nice to find that Quinn is a big exception.
March 29th, 2017 at 12:02 PM ^
I agree that Baumgardner's writing style is...not the cleanest, but his analysis is pretty solid in my opinion. His Monday columns after football games were full of good stuff about specific plays and players. He does tend to spout cliches at times, but he backs them up with actual numbers and analysis. Brian mentioned in a column once that he does way more than the average local beat writer and I agree. He and Quinn are great together on the podcast, too.
March 29th, 2017 at 12:33 PM ^
I'll check out the podcast. I admittedly have some hangups that may be holding me back; I wanted to mail the dude a thesaurus last season.
So i thought about writing this in the previous Mo Bamba thread, but that was such a cluster that I didn't know where it would be most appropriate. People have complained about the lack of recruiting one and dones like Calipari, but that's not for me, Yes, recruiting like Calipari would probably lead to more success, and I readily admit that a lot of people will disagree with this sentiment because to many, winning is everything, but I don't think I would like his style simply for likability. As a fan, I like to see my guys develop for 3-4 years> I like that Derrick Walton went from a guy expected to take over as Trey Burke, to a guy that was third fiddle to levert and stauskas, to a guy that was really just a spot up shooter, to a guy that finally realized his potential and went on an absolute tear to end his career. I love the trials and tribulations of the Zak Irvin career. We have personalities like Spike, Mcgary, Jordan Morgan, Zack Novak, Trey mother f-in Burke.
Kentucky fans get the best players of the country to root for during a 6 month span and then they are gone and are simply an after thought because they are just getting another crop coming in next fall. Do you think they spend much time thinking back on Michael Kidd-Gilchrest? Or Brandon Knight? Nerlens Noel? The Harrison Twins? Sure, they get their memorbale players. Anthony Davis was unbelievable. John Wall and Demarcus Cousins were great. But for me personally, I would sacrifice some winning to have memories of the aforementioned players that are talked about on Michigan blogs frequently and remembered for their contributions to the program.
That being said, if Mo Bamba wants to come, I wouldn't say no.
But I would rather have the titles and F4 appearances rather vs the memories. Ultimately, it's about hanging banners. And I would think that Kentucky fans have very fond memories of guys like Davis and MK-G even though they were short stays.
^This. I love the development of guys like LeVert and Stauskas, etc.
However, watching a powerhouse 5* like McGary dominate, even if only for a very short time, was magnificent.
I'll concede the one-and-dones to Kentucky, but give me some 2-and-outs for Beilein to mold.
March 29th, 2017 at 10:48 AM ^
One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet given the way Beilein recruits is the enormous amount of pressure that is put on his evaluations and skill development. When you recruit the one and two and dones, you are getting guys that can come in and likely start day 1 with a ready made NBA skill set. When you recruit under the radar guys it's more of a crapshoot. Maybe they turn out like Caris LeVert or Trey Burke and you look like a genius, or maybe they turn out like Ricky Doyle and Aubrey Dawkins. I think there is a compromise there to be struck.
And potentially a third if not for freakin' Aaron Harrison.
March 29th, 2017 at 12:54 PM ^
Were relatively minor players in 2014.
Yes, all the credit in the world for this season's run.
But I would still rather get 1s and dones that are the main cog to F4s and season crowns compared to 4 year guys that provide more "moments."
March 29th, 2017 at 10:01 AM ^
What's interesting is that Red Berenson has recruited more one and dones (or two and dones) than almost any other coach in college hockey over the last 25 years and no one has had a problem with that, but for some reason the basketball program is supposed to above it?
I don't want an entire team of one and dones like Kentucky because I think being older and having experience in college basketball is an advantage for the teams that have it, however I would like to see more McDonalds AA's get recruited because ultimately this is Michigan and we should be able to attract the very best players in the country.
March 29th, 2017 at 10:15 AM ^
I personally do not know enough about college hockey to know if that is an apt comparison. Is hockey a sport that typically has players stay throughout their careers? Or do the best players typically leave as soon as they feel like they are ready to make the jump?
March 29th, 2017 at 10:17 AM ^
Serious question. Why would that make a difference? If the troubling issue is players leaving early, it really shouldn't matter how frequently it happens. It should be troubling irrespective of the circumstances.
March 29th, 2017 at 10:27 AM ^
My point was that I didn't know enough about the entire scope of things to really make an apple for apple comparison on the two. He brought up a question of Red Berenson doing what we are talking about and no one having a problem with it, and I guess my response has two parts.
I do not have a problem with schools doing the kentucky approach to things to win, that is absolutely fine. And I don't think if a coach like Beilein was purposely not doing that approach makes him "above it" like he is some high and mighty coach that thinks that strategy is scum. Just from my personal fan opinion, I like to have players I root for be around long enough for me to "get to know" for lack of a better phrase. Secondly, I don't follow Michigan hockey, so when he is saying "no one has had a problem with that", maybe I would if that is his strategy towards success. But I think "problem" is the wrong word. I would prefer preference as I don't have a "problem" with Kentucky doing what they do, I just prefer the alternative.
March 29th, 2017 at 11:04 AM ^
I'm not even sure if it's an issue of Beilein purposely avoiding it completely. Even beyond the guys he's had leave early here, he's gone after his share of guys of the one-and-done pedigree (Luke Kennard and TJ Leaf immediately come to mind), he just hasn't signed many. Even guys like Irvin and Walton were top 50 recruits, or the types of guys who typically look to stick around longer than a year or two. I've enjoyed their growth, especially the transformation of Irvin from whipping post to beloved, but at the same time, I acknowledge the only reason we saw four years of them is because they didn't blossom into NBA prospects earlier in their careers.
I will say this about Calipari, who I don't think is a very good coach. Of the coaches who go heavy after the one-and-done types, he's the only one who's honest about what he's doing. He doesn't pretend that his goal isn't to get players in the league after a year or two. This is why Cal's opposite isn't Beilein, it's people like Coach K. Krzyzewski plays the same exact game as Calipari but pretends he's doing something different.
March 29th, 2017 at 11:16 AM ^
I am glad you made that point about Calipari. I am not trying to say that I dislike his approach on the whole. I actually am part of the minority that likes Calipari and his blunt honesty about trying to help kids get to the NBA. I respect that. I just want to have my team be guys I'm mostly familiar with. I am fine if our players want to leave for the NBA when they are ready. I was fine with Burke leaving, I was fine with Stauskas and Robinson leaving, it happens and it is the culture. I am simply selfishly saying that I like having the guys that need developing and can turn into something special for the fans. I like that DJ Wilson struggled for two years and has now blossomed into a legit NBA prospect who we can rely on to come back and be a Don Brown esq dude next year.
Another part that plays into this whole thing is that every year I start to watch college basketball, and I struggle early because I don't know who the hell anyone is, I like that I know our players here at Michigan.
March 29th, 2017 at 12:21 PM ^
I'd say there's nothing wrong from a fan standpoint. It's cool to watch players grow from unheralded to NBA prospect. I agree from a big-picture standpoint that it is harder to watch the game when you don't know the players. The 2015 Duke team might have been the least hated Duke team in recent memory, in part because most of the guys weren't around long enough to get hated (even Grayson Allen hadn't made his heel turn yet). It's also true that the decline in play in college has a lot to do with the lack of high-quality upperclassmen. There have been four seniors picked in the top 10 of the last 10 NBA drafts by my count, and you'd have to go back to 2006 to find a senior drafted in the top 5.
Still, you need some high-level talent if you're really trying to win a national title, or at the least be a consistently ranked team. I know schools like Wisconsin and Virginia have pulled it off (to be fair, Sam Dekker was ranked 12th in his class and UVa pulled in a top 10 class last year), but they also play really ugly basketball. It's perfectly fine to go unearth players like Wilson, but it also helps to have some higher-level prospects who might be gone after two years but can also keep things rolling until guys like Wilson are ready.
March 29th, 2017 at 10:34 AM ^
Hockey generally has guys that stay in school a bit longer because unlike college basketball where the next level up is the NBA, in hockey there is the AHL (think AAA baseball) between college and the NHL. However Michigan has recruited a ton of guys who have gone straight to the NHL from college like Dylan Larkin, Zach Werenski, Jacob Trouba, Max Pacioretty, Mike Komisaerk, and Jack Johnson just to name a few. All were all either one and done or two and done players at Michigan, and that's to say nothing of the guys Michigan has gotten commitments from or recruited that went straight to the NHL or chose to play in the OHL instead. For example Berenson recruited current Toronto Maple Leafs sensation Mitch Marner (#4 overall pick in the draft) extremely hard, however he ultimately decided not to go the college route and decided to play in the OHL. Auston Matthews (#1 overall pick in the draft who will win NHL rookie of the year) was another guy Michigan wanted bad. Hope that helps.
March 29th, 2017 at 11:07 AM ^
Okay, thank you for that. To answer your question, that's great for success because obviously over his tenure, Michigan hockey has been very good. My point was simply that if I am choosing between success with 4 year guys and success with 1 or 2 year guys (2 and done being much more reasonable for my fandom), I will choose the former in a heart beat, even to the point where I would be willing to sacrifice some of the consistent success to have the memories of guys pushing through and finally winning.
Ideally, switching back to the basketball side of things, I would love to have the best of both worlds and be like Carolina has been for most of the 2000's. They would get their huge recruits, struggle (relatively) for a year or two and then compete for championships the final two years. This happened with the Sean May/Raymond Felton crew, and then Hansbrough and Lawson, and then even Barnes/Marshall/Henson group. To me, that's the dream.
I don't want to misrepresent myself and have people think I do not want to recruit elite players, because I do. I just think from a fan's perspective, It would lose some of it's luster if I was only seeing our best players play for one season year in and year out.
March 29th, 2017 at 11:24 AM ^
Also, having three or so one-and-dones on a hockey roster is significantly different than having three or so one-and-dones on a basketball roster. Percentage-wise and from a higher level strategy perspective.
March 29th, 2017 at 10:13 AM ^
Like I said, I know I am not providing a unanimous opinion. I know that there is a large portion of any fan base that thinks winning would trump the fan experience. But for me, I think the likability and consistency of a program is what makes it great.
Another question is this, which I am sure has been discussed before, but what are everyone's thoughts on winning infrequently being more exciting for fans? I had this discussion with a friend from Manchester who was a massive Manchester City fan (would go to every match home or away), and for those who don't know, they were bad for a very long time. Then they went on this recent run where they are one of the 2-3 best teams in the league year in and year out, mostly by buying the best players and getting rid of them for better players every few years. He says it takes away from the fan experience to be winning so much and not getting a certain sense of loyalty to the individual players. He says there is a certain ecstasy about seeing the guys that he cheered for years and years finally pushing through and winning a title for the club that had struggled so much.
I imagine it is a similar feeling to the kentucky fans or alabama football fans who know very little outside of recent success. That's not to say I wouldn't gladly take football and basketball championships each year for the next 10, to me it's not a "too much winning" philosophy. But when I consider this year in particular, I think there is a sense that the Michigan fan base would have found more enjoyment from a run to the final four after watching the entire career of Walton and Irvin, then a Kentucky fan base would have with Monk and Fox being just their newest two of their one and done superstars taking them there.
Even as someone who has zero problem with players leaving early (because let's be honest, most people wouldn't have stayed in school for 4+ years if they could take their same jobs at the same salary after 2), we as a fanbase have to stop acting like there's no middle ground between Kentucky's recruiting and Beilein's recruiting. There's a pretty big space between getting six guys who all plan to leave after one year (which again, I personally have zero problem with), and getting classes that consistently fall outside the top 25.
March 29th, 2017 at 10:17 AM ^
Oh, I didn't mean to misrepresent myself. I also have absolutely zero problem with the one and done culture from the player's perspective. I am a very big advocate for someone going to get their money if someone is offering it to them. And to your other point, I agree. I was just referencing it being mentioned in the other thread that we should strive to be Calipari, which just from my selfish fan perspective, I don't think I would like.
March 29th, 2017 at 10:29 AM ^
Bingo.
Michigan isn't a blueblood program, and I don't expect regular top 10 classes.
... but Michigan IS a historically second tier program, and has great resources - so should be recruiting regularly in that #10-25 range.
Beilein has had more classes outside the top 25 than in the top 25.