Jordan I think will stay, he won't get drafted if he goes...He isn't Mo Harkless and also that other recruit lavin had lined up probably stays. But like you said recruiting will be interesting.
Like Junc said he definitely has elevated them into elite status but it's not like he took over Northwestern or Washington State and did this. He took over a good to marginally very good program and made them a national power. They made either the NIT or NCAA tournament 7 straight years (5 of them being the NCAA Tournament) previous to his arrival. None of it takes away from the fact that Izzo is in the conversation with K, Pitino, Cal , Roy and Boeheim when dealing with elite coaches. But he did, let's be honest. Izzo has made it cool to go to MSU but previous to him being in East Lansing in arguably the most depressing state in America probably hurt the caliber of players they got. It was a deterrent to kids to go to East Lansing. When Izzo built his program he did it with Michigan players, Mateen Cleeves and Mo Pete were both from Flint, Jason Richardson another Michigan kid and then Andre Hutson was from Ohio. He just convinced them to go to State instead of at the time the beleaguered Michigan program. The Chris Webber thing at UM was probably the best thing to happen to Izzo.
I'll take all the Spartans I can get. I'm riding them in my pool and getting five on Saturday, probably more if they can get past Duke for Monday night.
the only issue I have w/ your post is including Boeheim. I don't think Boeheim belongs w/ those other coaches.
marginally very good? No Elite 8s in 16 years. Making the NIT shouldn't even count for anything. I don't even know if they qualified as good with that lack of success. They never won the conference in those 16 years either."Above average" at best. Izzo took a program that never advanced deep in the tournament since the '70s and made it a program that consistently makes the Final Four. They make the Final Four more often than the elite programs that get the five star McDonald's recruits.
if they beat Duke face Kentucky, they'd be +8 or +9. You can get Michigan State at 14/1 to win the title, and it'd probably be even better with a two team open parlay. +205 to beat Duke, maybe +500 to beat Kentucky.
MSU was a 1 seed 5 years before Izzo, they were a 3 seed the year before Izzo took over. they were in the Tourney more often than not. it was a GOOD program, Izzo made it an elite program.
Here's a good stat: Michigan State has been in 15 straight NCAA tournaments under Izzo (they've made 18 total under him). From 1939-1995, they appeared in 11 NCAA tournaments, total. In the '80s, they made the tournament twice.
that looks great but you have to remember until the late 70s only one team per conference made the NCAAs and MSU had IU at their peak to deal with. from 1985-1995 they made 7 of 11 tourneys 1985 10 seed lost rd 1 1986 5 seed lost Sweet 16 1990 1 seed, lost Sweet 16(on shot that wouldn't be allowed today b/c of replay. Kenny Anderson's shot was after the buzzer) 1991 5 seed, lost rd 2 1992 5 seed, lost rd 2 1994 7 seed, lost rd 2 1995 3 seed, lost rd 1 didn't make tourney next 2 years under Izzo they went 1 and done only 2 times MSU had a good program, Izzo made it elite.
odds should've been even longer, considering whenever these come out, they sound great, but at the time, they nearly were always ripoff prices http://www.nj.com/rutgersbasketball..._tournament_michigan_state_win_will_earn.html They were 5-3 at the time. Consider that they had to make the NCAA tournament and somehow advance to the Final Four, and now they're still 14/1!!!! Means the price probably should've been more like 100/1 when he bet.
in an entire decade they made it twice and in the '80s 48+ teams made it in.* 48+ made it in and in 10 years MSU made the tournament twice, winning a grand total of 2 NCAA tournament games in that decade. That's pretty bad. *80-82 48 made it 83 52 made it 84 53 made it 85-89 64 made it
Yeah and I gave you the whole decade before Izzo arrived in the '80s they were mediocre. If you want to only look at the years right before Izzo, then I guess they could be classified as "good" albeit a team that never had tournament success. If you look at the big picture this was not an impressive program at all.
Heathcote is fortunate he didn't coach in the modern era. He would've been fired for being poor in the '80s.
Izzo is probably fortunate he coaches today, he would have had a harder time making all these FFs against better competition in the 80s.
In no way am I bashing Izzo, I just get tired of the "he has no players" and "he turned a bad program into a great one" stuff. It's just not true. that doesn't take away from how great Izzo is.
