Michigan 2023

[gymman1031]

Bring on Marquette.

Year after year Comry gets top recruits. Year after year they underperform. Beating a terrible Canisius team and then losing to Marquette??? You gotta be shitting me here. Way overrated team. Wonder how much longer they stick with Comry.

We will see. As I have said, the excuses of being a “new” program and being young shouldn’t be valid anymore. I still hope Conry surprises, but anyone who isn’t having some doubts doesn’t know what they are talking about.

So since you talk out both sides of your mouth , please tell us how many years does a new coach get in an establish program get to turn things around, and how many years for a new program? And I would say there is a big difference between Michigan and NJIT in how many years each coach should get.

There are a lot of factors involved. One should be the overall potential of the program. And, in my opinion, Michigan has the potential to be excellent. NJIT doesn’t. One has a ton of things to sell in recruiting. The other doesn’t. Just curious as to what your current thoughts about Conry at Michigan are.

[B10KeepsGrowing]

Bring on Marquette.

Year after year Comry gets top recruits. Year after year they underperform. Beating a terrible Canisius team and then losing to Marquette??? You gotta be shitting me here. Way overrated team. Wonder how much longer they stick with Comry.

We will see. As I have said, the excuses of being a “new” program and being young shouldn’t be valid anymore. I still hope Conry surprises, but anyone who isn’t having some doubts doesn’t know what they are talking about.

So since you talk out both sides of your mouth , please tell us how many years does a new coach get in an establish program get to turn things around, and how many years for a new program? And I would say there is a big difference between Michigan and NJIT in how many years each coach should get.

There are a lot of factors involved. One should be the overall potential of the program. And, in my opinion, Michigan has the potential to be excellent. NJIT doesn’t. One has a ton of things to sell in recruiting. The other doesn’t. Just curious as to what your current thoughts about Conry at Michigan are.

Ill be honest bc knowing where the school pulls from (a very large northeast student population), their academic reputation, the athletic reputation, their facilities (phenomenal), their post graduate relocation (very often back to the northeast) and great graduate programs, I thought it would take a couple of years for them to be a contender. I am surprised they haven't performed better. Every year they seem to get good players but I am also surprised they don't get better. People will say the weather etc . . .but they get these student athletes for other sports and again UMich is a huge feeder school for northeast students where lacrosse has its best players. New York and NJ has the 2nd and 5th most students matriculating to UMich.

[Farfromgeneva]

Bring on Marquette.

Year after year Comry gets top recruits. Year after year they underperform. Beating a terrible Canisius team and then losing to Marquette??? You gotta be shitting me here. Way overrated team. Wonder how much longer they stick with Comry.

We will see. As I have said, the excuses of being a “new” program and being young shouldn’t be valid anymore. I still hope Conry surprises, but anyone who isn’t having some doubts doesn’t know what they are talking about.

So since you talk out both sides of your mouth , please tell us how many years does a new coach get in an establish program get to turn things around, and how many years for a new program? And I would say there is a big difference between Michigan and NJIT in how many years each coach should get.

There are a lot of factors involved. One should be the overall potential of the program. And, in my opinion, Michigan has the potential to be excellent. NJIT doesn’t. One has a ton of things to sell in recruiting. The other doesn’t. Just curious as to what your current thoughts about Conry at Michigan are.

Problem I, and I think some folks here, is you pound certain topics with such absolute certainty as to your hypothesis as to not allow that maybe it’s wrong. Maybe Michigan can be a great institution and a lousy attraction to lacrosse recruits for any number of reasons. Maybe the rankings and expert opinions of recruits is circular in its logic and analysis and by embedding this “highly regarded by certain pundits and experts” = exceptional college talent assumed fact not in evidence from 40-50yrs of seeing this.

We have examples of programs that go on downswings for a few years because they get the right recruits who are overrated in bunches and it sometimes takes coaches down or requires long rebuilds for programs to correct. Classic example at this point is the famous #1 recruiting class GTown got mid/late 2000s or Harvard’s #1 class under Wojik (that probably was a coaching issue) etc.

Pointing to coaches every single time things don’t go as you want them too is a little weird for someone not affiliated to a program, because you do it on numerous threads. Dumb but understandable with a fanatical program/institution like myself and some other Bart fans re Bart, 96.4% of Hop fans on their thread (that’s a scientific percentage there), and on and on.

[HopFan16]

There's a group of posters here who are unyielding in blaming coaches for a program failing to live up to external expectations and then there's another group who is absolutist — almost militant — in defending coaches 100% of the time as if they are incapable of erring in any way whatsoever. Both of these views are equally wrong, IMO. A lot of the arguments when it comes to evaluating a coaching staff totally lack nuance. "Recruiting well" is both within a coach's control *and also* influenced by factors outside of his control — like the attractiveness of the institution itself, which he can package and pitch to recruits/families but cannot fundamentally change. Then there's stuff like the X's and O's — some schemes are better than others, adjustments before and during games, player evaluation and development — these are all things coaches can (or fail to) do that can make a team better or worse, but, again, at the end of the day, you need the Jimmies and the Joes, and some players are just flat out better than others and no coach can change that.

Admittedly longwinded but I just don't get why some people are so black-and-white when it comes to this stuff. Just like some players are better than others, some coaches can be better than others as well. That's to say nothing of all the team-building/culture stuff which a coach is largely responsible for and can affect a team's performance on the field, IMO. Not all coaches are created the same the same way not all teachers are created the same. Some are just better at communicating concepts and getting students/players to buy in and do what they need to do.

When it comes to Michigan, I don't know what their internal hopes/expectations are (win multiple B1G games? Make the NCAA tournament? Compete for a national title? no idea) but it would seem from an objective standpoint that the program is kind of just treading water and not clearly moving in a positive direction. Thus I think they'd be justified in giving another staff a try, but that does not necessarily mean Conry is entirely to blame for failing to reach whatever goals the school has set for itself. (I'm assuming they haven't met those goals — maybe they have. Again, no idea really). Either way it does kind of feel like they're at an inflection point now in year 6 of the current regime after ending the previous season on an 8-game losing streak. I suspect they may move on in the offseason barring a leap forward in conference play.

[gymman1031]

Considering where the program stands, and considering the future has been uncertain ever since they became a DI program, I honestly think Coach Conry is doing a very good job in recruiting. But will that continue if it starts to look more and more like he may have hit his ceiling? Not saying this season should be his last if they disappoint. However, if they do, people having concerns and doubts is totally understandable. This is his sixth season, and not only is the talent his, but they are much more experienced than in the previous couple of years. We can hope that they simply had a bad day vs. a Marquette team that will end up proving to be pretty good, and that they rebound strong and have more good than bad moments for the rest of this season.

[jersey shore lax]

There's a group of posters here who are unyielding in blaming coaches for a program failing to live up to external expectations and then there's another group who is absolutist — almost militant — in defending coaches 100% of the time as if they are incapable of erring in any way whatsoever. Both of these views are equally wrong, IMO. A lot of the arguments when it comes to evaluating a coaching staff totally lack nuance. "Recruiting well" is both within a coach's control *and also* influenced by factors outside of his control — like the attractiveness of the institution itself, which he can package and pitch to recruits/families but cannot fundamentally change. Then there's stuff like the X's and O's — some schemes are better than others, adjustments before and during games, player evaluation and development — these are all things coaches can (or fail to) do that can make a team better or worse, but, again, at the end of the day, you need the Jimmies and the Joes, and some players are just flat out better than others and no coach can change that.

Admittedly longwinded but I just don't get why some people are so black-and-white when it comes to this stuff. Just like some players are better than others, some coaches can be better than others as well. That's to say nothing of all the team-building/culture stuff which a coach is largely responsible for and can affect a team's performance on the field, IMO. Not all coaches are created the same the same way not all teachers are created the same. Some are just better at communicating concepts and getting students/players to buy in and do what they need to do.

When it comes to Michigan, I don't know what their internal hopes/expectations are (win multiple B1G games? Make the NCAA tournament? Compete for a national title? no idea) but it would seem from an objective standpoint that the program is kind of just treading water and not clearly moving in a positive direction. Thus I think they'd be justified in giving another staff a try, but that does not necessarily mean Conry is entirely to blame for failing to reach whatever goals the school has set for itself. (I'm assuming they haven't met those goals — maybe they have. Again, no idea really). Either way it does kind of feel like they're at an inflection point now in year 6 of the current regime after ending the previous season on an 8-game losing streak. I suspect they may move on in the offseason barring a leap forward in conference play.

This is really an interesting subject, and I totally agree that it is never a black and white with coaches. Michigan checks the two major boxes that a coach has no control over (academic's and facilities), I do not think location or weather is a huge factor (see ND and Ohio St) so maybe the staff is a little more to blame than at some other schools that can not offer what UM can. I would have to believe that when they decided to go D1 the goals were more than going 7-48 in conference and 6-45 in the Big Ten.

[Formerhound]

Sorry but I just don’t understand some of you. Michigan is a top tier academic school. It has a great lacrosse facility. It has great extracurricular activities and major D-1 programs which should attract any incoming freshman lax player. Every year now Michigan gets highly rated recruits yet they never seem to win much. Think about it and compare it to my alma matter where I used to play Loyola. Michigan has much more to offer an incoming student than Loyola. Year after year in the past five recruiting seasons Michigan’s recruits are higher ranked than Loyola’s. Why does Loyola win a ton more than Michigan? Coaching AND recruiting. Getting the right kid for the program. Finding diamonds in the rough. Having great assistants who also recruit. Comry has everything going for him at Michigan yet doesn’t win. Sad.

[lorin]

Sorry but I just don’t understand some of you. Michigan is a top tier academic school. It has a great lacrosse facility. It has great extracurricular activities and major D-1 programs which should attract any incoming freshman lax player. Every year now Michigan gets highly rated recruits yet they never seem to win much. Think about it and compare it to my alma matter where I used to play Loyola. Michigan has much more to offer an incoming student than Loyola. Year after year in the past five recruiting seasons Michigan’s recruits are higher ranked than Loyola’s. Why does Loyola win a ton more than Michigan? Coaching AND recruiting. Getting the right kid for the program. Finding diamonds in the rough. Having great assistants who also recruit. Comry has everything going for him at Michigan yet doesn’t win. Sad.

Have to be smart to go to Michigan.

[a fan]

There's a group of posters here who are unyielding in blaming coaches for a program failing to live up to external expectations and then there's another group who is absolutist — almost militant — in defending coaches 100% of the time as if they are incapable of erring in any way whatsoever. Both of these views are equally wrong, IMO. A lot of the arguments when it comes to evaluating a coaching staff totally lack nuance. "Recruiting well" is both within a coach's control *and also* influenced by factors outside of his control — like the attractiveness of the institution itself, which he can package and pitch to recruits/families but cannot fundamentally change. Then there's stuff like the X's and O's — some schemes are better than others, adjustments before and during games, player evaluation and development — these are all things coaches can (or fail to) do that can make a team better or worse, but, again, at the end of the day, you need the Jimmies and the Joes, and some players are just flat out better than others and no coach can change that.

That's not my position at all. My point is a simple one. Yep, coaches have an effect. No question.

But the effect that they have is overwhelmed by the talent on the field, assuming the coach isn't a complete doorknob. It's not even a close call.

I can cite examples of this until the cows come home, but it's not the offseason, so I'll spare you from that.

When it comes to Michigan, I don't know what their internal hopes/expectations are (win multiple B1G games? Make the NCAA tournament? Compete for a national title? no idea) but it would seem from an objective standpoint that the program is kind of just treading water and not clearly moving in a positive direction. Thus I think they'd be justified in giving another staff a try, but that does not necessarily mean Conry is entirely to blame for failing to reach whatever goals the school has set for itself. (I'm assuming they haven't met those goals — maybe they have. Again, no idea really). Either way it does kind of feel like they're at an inflection point now in year 6 of the current regime after ending the previous season on an 8-game losing streak. I suspect they may move on in the offseason barring a leap forward in conference play.

It's real simple: they just renewed his contract before the start of the season. That's where Conry stands.

Thankfully, the UMich AD doesn't buy the annual Inside Lacrosse Recruiting issue, so he doesn't have expectations based on "some guy on the internet's" opinion on the HS talent coming to Ann Arbor.

[Farfromgeneva]

There's a group of posters here who are unyielding in blaming coaches for a program failing to live up to external expectations and then there's another group who is absolutist — almost militant — in defending coaches 100% of the time as if they are incapable of erring in any way whatsoever. Both of these views are equally wrong, IMO. A lot of the arguments when it comes to evaluating a coaching staff totally lack nuance. "Recruiting well" is both within a coach's control *and also* influenced by factors outside of his control — like the attractiveness of the institution itself, which he can package and pitch to recruits/families but cannot fundamentally change. Then there's stuff like the X's and O's — some schemes are better than others, adjustments before and during games, player evaluation and development — these are all things coaches can (or fail to) do that can make a team better or worse, but, again, at the end of the day, you need the Jimmies and the Joes, and some players are just flat out better than others and no coach can change that.

Admittedly longwinded but I just don't get why some people are so black-and-white when it comes to this stuff. Just like some players are better than others, some coaches can be better than others as well. That's to say nothing of all the team-building/culture stuff which a coach is largely responsible for and can affect a team's performance on the field, IMO. Not all coaches are created the same the same way not all teachers are created the same. Some are just better at communicating concepts and getting students/players to buy in and do what they need to do.

When it comes to Michigan, I don't know what their internal hopes/expectations are (win multiple B1G games? Make the NCAA tournament? Compete for a national title? no idea) but it would seem from an objective standpoint that the program is kind of just treading water and not clearly moving in a positive direction. Thus I think they'd be justified in giving another staff a try, but that does not necessarily mean Conry is entirely to blame for failing to reach whatever goals the school has set for itself. (I'm assuming they haven't met those goals — maybe they have. Again, no idea really). Either way it does kind of feel like they're at an inflection point now in year 6 of the current regime after ending the previous season on an 8-game losing streak. I suspect they may move on in the offseason barring a leap forward in conference play.

They may only care about having a program and not support it in a way
That creates a winning programs which is more than “if you build it they’ll come”. It may be enough they have it in a brochure. Then Bill Tierney or Tillman wouldn’t succeed there. Entirely possibly it’s entirely off The radar big picture.

[Farfromgeneva]

There's a group of posters here who are unyielding in blaming coaches for a program failing to live up to external expectations and then there's another group who is absolutist — almost militant — in defending coaches 100% of the time as if they are incapable of erring in any way whatsoever. Both of these views are equally wrong, IMO. A lot of the arguments when it comes to evaluating a coaching staff totally lack nuance. "Recruiting well" is both within a coach's control *and also* influenced by factors outside of his control — like the attractiveness of the institution itself, which he can package and pitch to recruits/families but cannot fundamentally change. Then there's stuff like the X's and O's — some schemes are better than others, adjustments before and during games, player evaluation and development — these are all things coaches can (or fail to) do that can make a team better or worse, but, again, at the end of the day, you need the Jimmies and the Joes, and some players are just flat out better than others and no coach can change that.

Admittedly longwinded but I just don't get why some people are so black-and-white when it comes to this stuff. Just like some players are better than others, some coaches can be better than others as well. That's to say nothing of all the team-building/culture stuff which a coach is largely responsible for and can affect a team's performance on the field, IMO. Not all coaches are created the same the same way not all teachers are created the same. Some are just better at communicating concepts and getting students/players to buy in and do what they need to do.

When it comes to Michigan, I don't know what their internal hopes/expectations are (win multiple B1G games? Make the NCAA tournament? Compete for a national title? no idea) but it would seem from an objective standpoint that the program is kind of just treading water and not clearly moving in a positive direction. Thus I think they'd be justified in giving another staff a try, but that does not necessarily mean Conry is entirely to blame for failing to reach whatever goals the school has set for itself. (I'm assuming they haven't met those goals — maybe they have. Again, no idea really). Either way it does kind of feel like they're at an inflection point now in year 6 of the current regime after ending the previous season on an 8-game losing streak. I suspect they may move on in the offseason barring a leap forward in conference play.

This is really an interesting subject, and I totally agree that it is never a black and white with coaches. Michigan checks the two major boxes that a coach has no control over (academic's and facilities), I do not think location or weather is a huge factor (see ND and Ohio St) so maybe the staff is a little more to blame than at some other schools that can not offer what UM can. I would have to believe that when they decided to go D1 the goals were more than going 7-48 in conference and 6-45 in the Big Ten.

They have NLI and Jim Harbaugh as their FB coach. And a Fab Five member coaching BB who they have to publicly apologize for his behavior. If the AD and Dept aren’t providing the bandwidth of their conference and institutional peers it doesn’t matter and I can only manage the amount of time and headspace that has to be devoted to Harbaugh.

[smoova]

Sorry but I just don’t understand some of you. Michigan is a top tier academic school. It has a great lacrosse facility. It has great extracurricular activities and major D-1 programs which should attract any incoming freshman lax player. Every year now Michigan gets highly rated recruits yet they never seem to win much. Think about it and compare it to my alma matter where I used to play Loyola. Michigan has much more to offer an incoming student than Loyola. Year after year in the past five recruiting seasons Michigan’s recruits are higher ranked than Loyola’s. Why does Loyola win a ton more than Michigan? Coaching AND recruiting. Getting the right kid for the program. Finding diamonds in the rough. Having great assistants who also recruit. Comry has everything going for him at Michigan yet doesn’t win. Sad.

Have to be smart to go to Michigan.

[gymman1031]

Sorry but I just don’t understand some of you. Michigan is a top tier academic school. It has a great lacrosse facility. It has great extracurricular activities and major D-1 programs which should attract any incoming freshman lax player. Every year now Michigan gets highly rated recruits yet they never seem to win much. Think about it and compare it to my alma matter where I used to play Loyola. Michigan has much more to offer an incoming student than Loyola. Year after year in the past five recruiting seasons Michigan’s recruits are higher ranked than Loyola’s. Why does Loyola win a ton more than Michigan? Coaching AND recruiting. Getting the right kid for the program. Finding diamonds in the rough. Having great assistants who also recruit. Comry has everything going for him at Michigan yet doesn’t win. Sad.

Yes, that is all true. Time should be limited for him to show that there is at least a chance he can take things much higher. If higher at all. And, one thing Michigan has to offer is a beautiful campus and an awesome college town.

[gymman1031]

Sorry but I just don’t understand some of you. Michigan is a top tier academic school. It has a great lacrosse facility. It has great extracurricular activities and major D-1 programs which should attract any incoming freshman lax player. Every year now Michigan gets highly rated recruits yet they never seem to win much. Think about it and compare it to my alma matter where I used to play Loyola. Michigan has much more to offer an incoming student than Loyola. Year after year in the past five recruiting seasons Michigan’s recruits are higher ranked than Loyola’s. Why does Loyola win a ton more than Michigan? Coaching AND recruiting. Getting the right kid for the program. Finding diamonds in the rough. Having great assistants who also recruit. Comry has everything going for him at Michigan yet doesn’t win. Sad.

Have to be smart to go to Michigan.

Yes, but you also have to be smart to go to the Ivy League schools, Duke, UNC, UVA, Georgetown, and more. And it sure hasn't hurt many of them having success on the lax field.

[wgdsr]

Sorry but I just don’t understand some of you. Michigan is a top tier academic school. It has a great lacrosse facility. It has great extracurricular activities and major D-1 programs which should attract any incoming freshman lax player. Every year now Michigan gets highly rated recruits yet they never seem to win much. Think about it and compare it to my alma matter where I used to play Loyola. Michigan has much more to offer an incoming student than Loyola. Year after year in the past five recruiting seasons Michigan’s recruits are higher ranked than Loyola’s. Why does Loyola win a ton more than Michigan? Coaching AND recruiting. Getting the right kid for the program. Finding diamonds in the rough. Having great assistants who also recruit. Comry has everything going for him at Michigan yet doesn’t win. Sad.

so you're saying they don't get the quality of recruits that they should?

[Formerhound]

Sorry but I just don’t understand some of you. Michigan is a top tier academic school. It has a great lacrosse facility. It has great extracurricular activities and major D-1 programs which should attract any incoming freshman lax player. Every year now Michigan gets highly rated recruits yet they never seem to win much. Think about it and compare it to my alma matter where I used to play Loyola. Michigan has much more to offer an incoming student than Loyola. Year after year in the past five recruiting seasons Michigan’s recruits are higher ranked than Loyola’s. Why does Loyola win a ton more than Michigan? Coaching AND recruiting. Getting the right kid for the program. Finding diamonds in the rough. Having great assistants who also recruit. Comry has everything going for him at Michigan yet doesn’t win. Sad.

Have to be smart to go to Michigan.

Have to be just as smart if not smarter to go to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Brown, Cornell, UVA, Duke, Georgetown, etc… and yet they all seem to win pretty regularly.

[Formerhound]

Sorry but I just don’t understand some of you. Michigan is a top tier academic school. It has a great lacrosse facility. It has great extracurricular activities and major D-1 programs which should attract any incoming freshman lax player. Every year now Michigan gets highly rated recruits yet they never seem to win much. Think about it and compare it to my alma matter where I used to play Loyola. Michigan has much more to offer an incoming student than Loyola. Year after year in the past five recruiting seasons Michigan’s recruits are higher ranked than Loyola’s. Why does Loyola win a ton more than Michigan? Coaching AND recruiting. Getting the right kid for the program. Finding diamonds in the rough. Having great assistants who also recruit. Comry has everything going for him at Michigan yet doesn’t win. Sad.

so you're saying they don't get the quality of recruits that they should?

It’s one or the other or both. Either they aren’t getting quality recruits (in spite of rankings and stars) or they are getting quality recruits and just not developing them or both. In any of the foregoing instances that is coaching. Either recruit better or coach better. Michigan has EVERYTHING that a recruit would want so it’s not like you are recruiting to go to Utah or Canisius. No reason not to win at that school.

[gymman1031]

Sorry but I just don’t understand some of you. Michigan is a top tier academic school. It has a great lacrosse facility. It has great extracurricular activities and major D-1 programs which should attract any incoming freshman lax player. Every year now Michigan gets highly rated recruits yet they never seem to win much. Think about it and compare it to my alma matter where I used to play Loyola. Michigan has much more to offer an incoming student than Loyola. Year after year in the past five recruiting seasons Michigan’s recruits are higher ranked than Loyola’s. Why does Loyola win a ton more than Michigan? Coaching AND recruiting. Getting the right kid for the program. Finding diamonds in the rough. Having great assistants who also recruit. Comry has everything going for him at Michigan yet doesn’t win. Sad.

so you're saying they don't get the quality of recruits that they should?

It’s one or the other or both. Either they aren’t getting quality recruits (in spite of rankings and stars) or they are getting quality recruits and just not developing them or both. In any of the foregoing instances that is coaching. Either recruit better or coach better. Michigan has EVERYTHING that a recruit would want so it’s not like you are recruiting to go to Utah or Canisius. No reason not to win at that school.

Yep! Do you agree with me that, when it comes to what DI programs have to offer in recruiting, Michigan is definitely Top 15-20 at the least? If not, at least in some ways, higher?

[Formerhound]

Sorry but I just don’t understand some of you. Michigan is a top tier academic school. It has a great lacrosse facility. It has great extracurricular activities and major D-1 programs which should attract any incoming freshman lax player. Every year now Michigan gets highly rated recruits yet they never seem to win much. Think about it and compare it to my alma matter where I used to play Loyola. Michigan has much more to offer an incoming student than Loyola. Year after year in the past five recruiting seasons Michigan’s recruits are higher ranked than Loyola’s. Why does Loyola win a ton more than Michigan? Coaching AND recruiting. Getting the right kid for the program. Finding diamonds in the rough. Having great assistants who also recruit. Comry has everything going for him at Michigan yet doesn’t win. Sad.

so you're saying they don't get the quality of recruits that they should?

It’s one or the other or both. Either they aren’t getting quality recruits (in spite of rankings and stars) or they are getting quality recruits and just not developing them or both. In any of the foregoing instances that is coaching. Either recruit better or coach better. Michigan has EVERYTHING that a recruit would want so it’s not like you are recruiting to go to Utah or Canisius. No reason not to win at that school.

Yep! Do you agree with me that, when it comes to what DI programs have to offer in recruiting, Michigan is definitely Top 15-20 at the least? If not, at least in some ways, higher?

Top 10 easily. I would have loved to have gone there. Loyola was great but they aren’t Big10 athletics nor are they top 10 academic institution. Michigan should be able to out recruit almost any school

[a fan]

Sorry but I just don’t understand some of you. Michigan is a top tier academic school. It has a great lacrosse facility. It has great extracurricular activities and major D-1 programs which should attract any incoming freshman lax player. Every year now Michigan gets highly rated recruits yet they never seem to win much. Think about it and compare it to my alma matter where I used to play Loyola. Michigan has much more to offer an incoming student than Loyola. Year after year in the past five recruiting seasons Michigan’s recruits are higher ranked than Loyola’s. Why does Loyola win a ton more than Michigan? Coaching AND recruiting. Getting the right kid for the program. Finding diamonds in the rough. Having great assistants who also recruit. Comry has everything going for him at Michigan yet doesn’t win. Sad.

so you're saying they don't get the quality of recruits that they should?

It’s one or the other or both. Either they aren’t getting quality recruits (in spite of rankings and stars) or they are getting quality recruits and just not developing them or both. In any of the foregoing instances that is coaching. Either recruit better or coach better. Michigan has EVERYTHING that a recruit would want so it’s not like you are recruiting to go to Utah or Canisius. No reason not to win at that school.

You're assuming that recruits share your view that Michigan is the place to be. Gymman is doing making the same assumption.

Have you not considered the possibility that you're wrong about this assumption? That the problem isn't the coach...it's the place?

Because if recruits based their choices on the views of us old guys as to where an elite player should go? Harvard would be on their 40th straight Final Four....instead of never once making it there. And Harvard had Tillman at the helm.