UM #1 Most Underachieving Basketball Program in the Nation (ESPN)

[HipDigIt]

I suppose this means that everybody should give Beilein even more credit if he gets this thing turned around.

I'll stay tuned and wait to see if the MSU fans here give him the proper credit if/when it's due.

I'm looking forward to a real life 98.6 human taking over the cadaver that is U-M hoop. I like Beilein. I applaud the choice and there is zero doubt in my mind that things are on the upswing as I type. He's a good hire.

[Jethro34]

When Michigan fans have been ripping TA for years and calling for his long past due canning, why would anyone think that Michigan fans wouldn't completely agree?
But as has been pointed out, the comparison to State fball is about who is better, not who is more of an underachiever. Michigan hoops should have been in the tourney several times in the past 6 years and wasn't there. That means underachieving. State football had no business being in a bowl game, so when they didn't get there it was no big deal. It just so happened that a few times State actually overachieved early in the year, put together some wins that looked more impressive than they really were, before the true colors came out. Still a worse program - if anything this proves it. At least the one program had some expectations, even if they failed miserably to meet them.

[Baker]

When Michigan fans have been ripping TA for years and calling for his long past due canning, why would anyone think that Michigan fans wouldn't completely agree?
But as has been pointed out, the comparison to State fball is about who is better, not who is more of an underachiever. Michigan hoops should have been in the tourney several times in the past 6 years and wasn't there. That means underachieving. State football had no business being in a bowl game, so when they didn't get there it was no big deal. It just so happened that a few times State actually overachieved early in the year, put together some wins that looked more impressive than they really were, before the true colors came out. Still a worse program - if anything this proves it. At least the one program had some expectations, even if they failed miserably to meet them.

Please explain to me when Michigan had good expectations bball. I can't remember them at all. I'd love to hear it. You claim Michigan is a better program yet you point out that they have done nothing but underachieve while MSU has overachieved in football. Nice logic. I love when you try to claim UM bball is a better program when they haven't won a BT title since 1987, haven't been in real postseason play in almost a decade, and haven't cracked the Top 25 in nearly a decade. MSU has done all of those things in football more recently. Good argument.

[WTFchris]

Almost every year they are picked to sneak into the tournament and every year they fail. I remember them having even higher expectations when they had Horton/Harris/Sims/Brown, etc all there. Nobody thought they'd make a final 4 or anything, but there weren't many years in the Tommy era (if any) that they had no business making the tournament. Especially the years following NIT runs, everybody thought they'd build on that. They never did.

[WTFchris]

I love when you try to claim UM bball is a better program when they haven't won a BT title since 1987, haven't been in real postseason play in almost a decade, and haven't cracked the Top 25 in nearly a decade. MSU has done all of those things in football more recently. Good argument.

Uh, Michigan won the national championship in 1989. Are you ignoring the national championship there? Or the two NCAA finals games in 1992 and 1993? I'm pretty sure MSU football hasn't been in or won the national championship game in quite some time. They played in the Rose Bowl in 1988 (the last thing you could count as a title game). And they finished 8th in the country that year BTW.

[Jethro34]

Ok, let me put it to you this way. If two teams play the same sport and 10 games each - team A is expected to go 1-9, team B is expected to go 5-5. Team A ends up going 2-8, while team B goes 3-7. Team A improved by 1 game over their expectations while B was a disappointing 2 games below. A overachieved and B sucked, yet B was better by one game. You may have to print this out and draw it up on a seperate sheet of paper, but it clearly shows how an underachiever can be better that an overachiever given expectations and results in a hypothetical situation. If you don't get that, you never will.

And as for Michigan having expectations, you yourself claimed that this year they had to make the tourney. You've ripped TA for not getting there with good recruits, haven't you? How many times have I heard you talk about Daniel Horton and Co. and how they had talent and TA couldn't get them there. So YOU had expectations. Meanwhile, State has been lucky at best to ever land more than 3 star talent for most of their team. The average starter for their team may not have even been a 3 star HS talent. Michigan hoops certainly had the talent, though they did nothing with it.

This argument is all about comparing NIT victories to bowl games that never existed or were embarrassments. They both suck, but at least one team gets to hang something resembling used toilet paper in their bleachers. The other doesn't even have that (unless you hang a banner for a Citrus Bowl win 8 years ago).

Please don't misunderstand and think I'm bragging about UM hoops. The one thing we can certainly agree on is they both suck, really bad. But our argument is simply who sucks worse. Look at winning percentage, that could be a start for you.
The article referenced the past 10 years, so let's look:
M hoops
Full season 169 - 144, winning 54% of their games
Big Ten 69-91, winning 43% of their games
State Football
Full season 61-58, winning 51%
Big Ten 33-47, winning 41%

So while both have sucked, Michigan has won 2-3% more, just edging out the Green and White. Man, this whole thing is pathetic.

[HipDigIt]

The stringbean shooter-transfer from University of Ben & Jerry's is going to BC.

[Jethro34]

Wrong thread Hip

[Knockout]

Almost every year they are picked to sneak into the tournament and every year they fail. I remember them having even higher expectations when they had Horton/Harris/Sims/Brown, etc all there. Nobody thought they'd make a final 4 or anything, but there weren't many years in the Tommy era (if any) that they had no business making the tournament. Especially the years following NIT runs, everybody thought they'd build on that. They never did.

So making it into the field of 65 would be considering "high expectations?" HAHA You "remember them havign even higher expectations when they had Horton, Harris, Sims, Brown" ??? I'm guessing those were their own expectations seeing that they were never picked to finish higher than 4th in the BT.

[Knockout]

Uh, Michigan won the national championship in 1989. Are you ignoring the national championship there? Or the two NCAA finals games in 1992 and 1993? I'm pretty sure MSU football hasn't been in or won the national championship game in quite some time. They played in the Rose Bowl in 1988 (the last thing you could count as a title game). And they finished 8th in the country that year BTW.

Did you really name 92 and 93? Did those happen to be the years when Michigan cheated the game of college basketball by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring in players to win that otherwise wouldn't have even considered this embarrassing program?