Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 6822 Location: NY Gender: Male
Sing Along! wrote:
On the banks of the Red Cedar There's a school that's known to all Its specialty is winning And those Spartans play good ball Spartan Teams are never beaten All through the game they'll fight Fight for the only colors Green and White Go right through for MSU Watch the points keep growing Spartan Teams are bound to win, they're fighting with a vim Rah! Rah! Rah! See their team is weakening We're going to win this game! Fight! Fight! Rah, Team, Fight! Victory for MSU!
Yes, UofM has struggled with injuries, but all you UofM fans know it doesn't matter in the rivalry. We have to get the chance to rub it in whenever we can. Don't bother bringing up football, it's over with. I'll even throw out a peace offering...Tommy Amaker is a great coach, who I respect, and I'm certain he will bring UofM back to being contenders.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
What is your basis for "Tommy Amaker is a great coach?"
he has done a horrible job recruiting from the PSL (malik harrison and joe crawford). The team has underperformed, injuries or not. He has virtually no public persona and the program has virtually no identity to the mainstream sports fans.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 6822 Location: NY Gender: Male
edzeppe wrote:
What is your basis for "Tommy Amaker is a great coach?"
he has done a horrible job recruiting from the PSL (malik harrison and joe crawford). The team has underperformed, injuries or not. He has virtually no public persona and the program has virtually no identity to the mainstream sports fans.
My basis (good lord, I'm defending a UofM coach here!) are numerous interviews I've seen/heard with him and the style of play and types of players he's brought to the program. He took over in a horrid situation. Nobody in their right mind should have expected him to turn the team around quickly. It's a long term process after what they've gone though. I think the teams he's coached have overperformed overall, actully. As for the "no identity to the mainstream sports fan" comment....where exactly did the Fab Four get UofM basketball? Oh yeah...right here.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 8066 Location: Las Vegas via Rockford (Roscoe), IL Gender: Female
Cool. I lived in Lansing for about a year, but if I would have stayed longer I probably would have gone to MSU.
_________________ Frank Kevin
At night I drink myself to sleep and pretend I don't care that you're not here with me Cause it's so much easier to handle all my problems if I'm too far out to sea
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
edzeppe wrote:
What is your basis for "Tommy Amaker is a great coach?"
He has virtually no public persona and the program has virtually no identity to the mainstream sports fans.
What do those 2 things have to do with coaching?
I trust in Tommy. The team has been in bad shape this season and Horton's recent fuckups aren't helping. I'm hoping they can at least get into the Tourney to help recruiting. Michigan will be back, they're just dormant right now.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Go_State wrote:
edzeppe wrote:
What is your basis for "Tommy Amaker is a great coach?"
he has done a horrible job recruiting from the PSL (malik harrison and joe crawford). The team has underperformed, injuries or not. He has virtually no public persona and the program has virtually no identity to the mainstream sports fans.
My basis (good lord, I'm defending a UofM coach here!) are numerous interviews I've seen/heard with him and the style of play and types of players he's brought to the program. He took over in a horrid situation. Nobody in their right mind should have expected him to turn the team around quickly. It's a long term process after what they've gone though. I think the teams he's coached have overperformed overall, actully. As for the "no identity to the mainstream sports fan" comment....where exactly did the Fab Four get UofM basketball? Oh yeah...right here.
He is a good coach. He has done NOTHING great. He was supposed to be a very good recruiter... and has only gotten ONE prospect from the PSL- Dion Harris. You know. The PSL. Innercity Detroit. Wear Michigan gear from the day they're born... yet when its time to go to college they are losing to Kentucky, MSU and OREGON. fucking oregon. Joe Crawford. Drew Neitzel. Malik Harrison. All guys who could easily be wearing the maize and blue.
Yes. he did take over a horrid situation. No question about it. The team was under a cloud and bereft of talent. Its a much better team that it was 5 years ago. He has done a DECENT job. Not great. Not one tourney apperance in his time here. I dont think its likely this year either.
and to AS's comments.
The 2 things have a ton to do with coaching- in college. Recruiting is AT LEAST 50% of college coaching. Making yourself public. Creating a persona is like free recruiting visits. Having a Saturday morning TV show or weekly radio show (his assistant coaches to his) are extra times that a new recruit, or his parents have you in their home.
Having an identity to the mainstream sports fans keeps people filling up the arena. Having an identity gets you on TV. These kids dont want want to play in front of half full arenas on Local Cable Access. A charismatic coach gets additional screen time. it keeps the program fresh in peoples minds.
and finally. Michigan Basketball, historically, has been an up and down program. They have had sporadic periods of prominence-88-95 is really the only time in the past 25 years that they have been good. Michigan Basketball is just a run of the mill occasionally good program.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am Posts: 8662 Location: IL
after seeing msu beat michigan last night, i dont think they have a shot against the illini next week... which pains me... because i was really hopin they could take care of business... but illinois' backcourt play will destroy mich state's... i hope im wrong
the game with the illini next week should be a barnburner.
_________________ i was dreaming through the howzlife yawning car black when she told me "mad and meaningless as ever" and a song came on my radio like a cemetery rhyme for a million crying corpses in their tragedy of respectable existence
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am Posts: 8662 Location: IL
knuckles of frisco wrote:
the game with the illini next week should be a barnburner.
state fans better hope they find a way for hill and neitzel to not get demolished by williams, head, and brown
i heard a quote from izzo after the michigan win saying that his team will be beaten by illinois if their guard play doesnt pick up and find a way to slow down the speedy illinois guards of williams and brown.... funny he forgot their best in luther head... i wonder if he actually overlooked him, or if he is just playing mind games and planning on shutting down head first (which would be the smart way to go, as head has proven that he is without question the best of the trio)
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
edzeppe wrote:
and to AS's comments. The 2 things have a ton to do with coaching- in college. Recruiting is AT LEAST 50% of college coaching. Making yourself public. Creating a persona is like free recruiting visits. Having a Saturday morning TV show or weekly radio show (his assistant coaches to his) are extra times that a new recruit, or his parents have you in their home. Having an identity to the mainstream sports fans keeps people filling up the arena. Having an identity gets you on TV. These kids dont want want to play in front of half full arenas on Local Cable Access. A charismatic coach gets additional screen time. it keeps the program fresh in peoples minds.
Obviously recruiting is important, you were talking about his "public persona". I'm not sure how Oregon's coach having a TV show in Oregon helped land him a kid from Detroit. You also said the program has no identity, define exactly what that even means.
edzeppe wrote:
and finally. Michigan Basketball, historically, has been an up and down program.
So are 98% of the rest of the NCAA.
edzeppe wrote:
They have had sporadic periods of prominence-88-95 is really the only time in the past 25 years that they have been good.
Cazzie Russell anyone? They've been a nationall prominent program since around 1960.
edzeppe wrote:
Michigan Basketball is just a run of the mill occasionally good program.
Just like 98% of other schools. There are 10 schools MAYBE that have a chance every 2-3 years to win it all, the rest are good occasionally.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 6822 Location: NY Gender: Male
edzeppe wrote:
Go_State wrote:
edzeppe wrote:
What is your basis for "Tommy Amaker is a great coach?"
he has done a horrible job recruiting from the PSL (malik harrison and joe crawford). The team has underperformed, injuries or not. He has virtually no public persona and the program has virtually no identity to the mainstream sports fans.
My basis (good lord, I'm defending a UofM coach here!) are numerous interviews I've seen/heard with him and the style of play and types of players he's brought to the program. He took over in a horrid situation. Nobody in their right mind should have expected him to turn the team around quickly. It's a long term process after what they've gone though. I think the teams he's coached have overperformed overall, actully. As for the "no identity to the mainstream sports fan" comment....where exactly did the Fab Four get UofM basketball? Oh yeah...right here.
He is a good coach. He has done NOTHING great. He was supposed to be a very good recruiter... and has only gotten ONE prospect from the PSL- Dion Harris. You know. The PSL. Innercity Detroit. Wear Michigan gear from the day they're born... yet when its time to go to college they are losing to Kentucky, MSU and OREGON. fucking oregon. Joe Crawford. Drew Neitzel. Malik Harrison. All guys who could easily be wearing the maize and blue.
Hmm I didn't realizie Drew Neitzel grew up in Detroit. Oh right, he didn't.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 6822 Location: NY Gender: Male
pearljamminagain wrote:
knuckles of frisco wrote:
the game with the illini next week should be a barnburner.
state fans better hope they find a way for hill and neitzel to not get demolished by williams, head, and brown
i heard a quote from izzo after the michigan win saying that his team will be beaten by illinois if their guard play doesnt pick up and find a way to slow down the speedy illinois guards of williams and brown.... funny he forgot their best in luther head... i wonder if he actually overlooked him, or if he is just playing mind games and planning on shutting down head first (which would be the smart way to go, as head has proven that he is without question the best of the trio)
Izzo also said if they turned the ball over and played this sloppily against Illinois they would set the record for most points scored against MSU, and he didn't really want to be associated with that stat. Needless to say, he wasn't real pleased with the Spartans performance last night, mostly cause it sucked.
The way I see State being able to beat the Illini is with a healthy Paul Davis having a big game. Illinois can be beaten down low. Now, if their guards shoot the lights out, it won't really matter.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
Athletic Supporter wrote:
Obviously recruiting is important, you were talking about his "public persona". I'm not sure how Oregon's coach having a TV show in Oregon helped land him a kid from Detroit. You also said the program has no identity, define exactly what that even means.
No, i dont even know if the oregon coach has a show, so i suppose that doesnt play a role in Harrisons final decision. However, you rarely hear Amaker speak, on TV or radio- and Michigan basketball in its core area has very much become an afterthought. Almost an out of sight, out of mind type of situation.
Athletic Supporter wrote:
So are 98% of the rest of the NCAA.
Thats kinda my point. Michigan is "just another program" in basketball. On par with 98% of other programs. I, for awhile, was under the impression that Michigan was to basketball what they were to football- a consistantly great program... as i was 8 when they started getting very good under Frieder, straight through the Fab Five Era (Webber, Rose, Howard, Jackson, King), Then the less impressive Fresh Five era (Ward, Taylor, Mitchell, Baston, Conlin?)... then the White, Bullock, and i cant remember the third recruit that year era. I just figured for awhile that Michigan was a national powerhouse year in and year out... Cause they were always so good in my formative years. (8-16ish).
Athletic Supporter wrote:
Cazzie Russell anyone? They've been a nationall prominent program since around 1960.
I was unaware that 1960 fell in the past 25 years. But it holds true even then. A couple good seasons, a couple great players... but never "Nationally prominent" program Like Duke is now. Like UNC, Indiana, UCLA, etc. used to be. More like Colorado Football. Comes up for some memorable runs.. then fades into obscurity for awhile.
Overall, my point is... Regardless of where Michigan was when Amaker started... it is still Michigan. Virtually unlimited resources. Recognized School. Solid, if unspectacular history, solid local talent base- so Amaker has a lot at his disposel. To refer to him as a GREAT coach with an under .500 record in conferance play, is a bit premature, when there are obvious flaws.
And yes, Neitzel is from Grand Rapids. With him i just refering to another talented in state prospect that went somewhere else.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
edzeppe wrote:
Athletic Supporter wrote:
Obviously recruiting is important, you were talking about his "public persona". I'm not sure how Oregon's coach having a TV show in Oregon helped land him a kid from Detroit. You also said the program has no identity, define exactly what that even means.
No, i dont even know if the oregon coach has a show, so i suppose that doesnt play a role in Harrisons final decision. However, you rarely hear Amaker speak, on TV or radio- and Michigan basketball in its core area has very much become an afterthought. Almost an out of sight, out of mind type of situation.
Athletic Supporter wrote:
So are 98% of the rest of the NCAA.
Thats kinda my point. Michigan is "just another program" in basketball. On par with 98% of other programs. I, for awhile, was under the impression that Michigan was to basketball what they were to football- a consistantly great program... as i was 8 when they started getting very good under Frieder, straight through the Fab Five Era (Webber, Rose, Howard, Jackson, King), Then the less impressive Fresh Five era (Ward, Taylor, Mitchell, Baston, Conlin?)... then the White, Bullock, and i cant remember the third recruit that year era. I just figured for awhile that Michigan was a national powerhouse year in and year out... Cause they were always so good in my formative years. (8-16ish).
Athletic Supporter wrote:
Cazzie Russell anyone? They've been a nationall prominent program since around 1960.
I was unaware that 1960 fell in the past 25 years. But it holds true even then. A couple good seasons, a couple great players... but never "Nationally prominent" program Like Duke is now. Like UNC, Indiana, UCLA, etc. used to be. More like Colorado Football. Comes up for some memorable runs.. then fades into obscurity for awhile.
Overall, my point is... Regardless of where Michigan was when Amaker started... it is still Michigan. Virtually unlimited resources. Recognized School. Solid, if unspectacular history, solid local talent base- so Amaker has a lot at his disposel. To refer to him as a GREAT coach with an under .500 record in conferance play, is a bit premature, when there are obvious flaws.
And yes, Neitzel is from Grand Rapids. With him i just refering to another talented in state prospect that went somewhere else.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am Posts: 8662 Location: IL
edzeppe wrote:
Athletic Supporter wrote:
Obviously recruiting is important, you were talking about his "public persona". I'm not sure how Oregon's coach having a TV show in Oregon helped land him a kid from Detroit. You also said the program has no identity, define exactly what that even means.
No, i dont even know if the oregon coach has a show, so i suppose that doesnt play a role in Harrisons final decision. However, you rarely hear Amaker speak, on TV or radio- and Michigan basketball in its core area has very much become an afterthought. Almost an out of sight, out of mind type of situation.
Athletic Supporter wrote:
So are 98% of the rest of the NCAA.
Thats kinda my point. Michigan is "just another program" in basketball. On par with 98% of other programs. I, for awhile, was under the impression that Michigan was to basketball what they were to football- a consistantly great program... as i was 8 when they started getting very good under Frieder, straight through the Fab Five Era (Webber, Rose, Howard, Jackson, King), Then the less impressive Fresh Five era (Ward, Taylor, Mitchell, Baston, Conlin?)... then the White, Bullock, and i cant remember the third recruit that year era. I just figured for awhile that Michigan was a national powerhouse year in and year out... Cause they were always so good in my formative years. (8-16ish).
Athletic Supporter wrote:
Cazzie Russell anyone? They've been a nationall prominent program since around 1960.
I was unaware that 1960 fell in the past 25 years. But it holds true even then. A couple good seasons, a couple great players... but never "Nationally prominent" program Like Duke is now. Like UNC, Indiana, UCLA, etc. used to be. More like Colorado Football. Comes up for some memorable runs.. then fades into obscurity for awhile.
Overall, my point is... Regardless of where Michigan was when Amaker started... it is still Michigan. Virtually unlimited resources. Recognized School. Solid, if unspectacular history, solid local talent base- so Amaker has a lot at his disposel. To refer to him as a GREAT coach with an under .500 record in conferance play, is a bit premature, when there are obvious flaws.
And yes, Neitzel is from Grand Rapids. With him i just refering to another talented in state prospect that went somewhere else.
used to be?... for 25+ years they go to the tourney, finish in the top 3 of the acc, go to the sweet 16 every season, but a couple down years makes them a "used to be"... not quite... they are one of the 4 most "nationally prominent" programs year-in, year-out (along with duke, ku, and uk)...
sorry... had to defend the heels.... but ucla and indiana are fine examples (indiana has pretty much lost their presence since bobby left)
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
pearljamminagain wrote:
used to be?... for 25+ years they go to the tourney, finish in the top 3 of the acc, go to the sweet 16 every season, but a couple down years makes them a "used to be"... not quite... they are probably one of the 3 most "nationally prominent" programs year-in, year-out...
sorry... had to defend the heels.... but ucla and indiana are fine examples (indiana has pretty much lost their presence since bobby left)
and if i listed them with the same section as Duke, someone would say "they suck for the past 3 years!"
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:14 am Posts: 8662 Location: IL
edzeppe wrote:
pearljamminagain wrote:
used to be?... for 25+ years they go to the tourney, finish in the top 3 of the acc, go to the sweet 16 every season, but a couple down years makes them a "used to be"... not quite... they are probably one of the 3 most "nationally prominent" programs year-in, year-out...
sorry... had to defend the heels.... but ucla and indiana are fine examples (indiana has pretty much lost their presence since bobby left)
and if i listed them with the same section as Duke, someone would say "they suck for the past 3 years!"
dude, 3 years out of what? over 40 years?.... that's not too shabby, and they actually only had one year under .500 since 1966 or something... they deserve all the kudos they receive (and more)... and of those three years, there were really only two BAD years... one of which they were still over .500
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:08 am Posts: 22978 Gender: Male
pearljamminagain wrote:
dude, 3 years out of what? over 40 years?.... that's not too shabby, and they actually only had one year under .500 since 1966 or something... they deserve all the kudos they receive (and more)... and of those three years, there were really only two BAD years... one of which they were still over .500
My point being that which ever group i listed them in, Someone would have bitched.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum