How does Beilein not pop into your mind when thinking of UM hoops? I know recruiting is part of the deal, but he got the most out of the guys he did recruit. They were deadly in March too. I would put him up there with the best coaches I've watched in the Big Ten.
Tenure. He was there 12 years, which is great, but not an astounding length. And he didn't retire there.
Agree that he's a phenomenal coach, one of the best I've seen in the B1G.
I view Keady as synonymous with Purdue basketball (Painter getting there, but it'll be another decade IMHO), Knight as synonymous with IU hoops, Heathcote/Izzo as synonymous with MSU basketball. The same way that Boeheim was with Syracuse, K with Duke, Williams with UNC, etc. Wooden with UCLA.
Bo and Woody were that for UM/OSU football. I don't think Beilein/Matta were the same level for UM/OSU hoops, despite the fact that I have the utmost respect for them as coaches.
Beilein pops into my head due to recency, but in 20 years will I consider him synonymous with UM basketball the way I do with Keady/Knight/Wooden/Bo/Woody who have all moved on? I doubt it.
He's phenomenal, but he's not legendary.
Seems Alphabeta is looking at this through the lens of "helmetiness" while Medina is ranking their actual historical accomplishments.
Yes, to an extent.
Let me ask it this way... Let's say that Purdue in the next 3 years wins an NC. I honestly think that with the talented youth, and the incoming recruits next year, Purdue is going to be a juggernaut.
Would one FF culminating in a NC tip the scales where all the rest of that "helmetiness" would push them ahead of UM/OSU on Medina's list?
Do we agree that Purdue has a higher level of "helmetiness" than the other two, but they've unfortunately just not put it together in March quite as well, and that is the only area they're lagging?