I guess the other thing is every once in a while I see a player on TV and think “man, that guy would be so much better if he played for Izzo. Why wouldn’t a guy like have wanted to play for Izzo???”

I always try to forget how unreliable I was when I was 18 when I’m watching college hoops (and demanding only the best out of the 18-year olds I’m watching).

Not sure about the recruiting-outside-the-Midwest question. One possible explanation: Izzo hasn’t tried to become a national recruiter like UNC/Duke/Kansas/etc. I haven’t followed recruiting closely enough to know if this is true or not, but I do remember Izzo specifically talking about the outline of the state of Michigan on the Breslin floor when they brought it in after the 2000 championship. He seemed to be contrasting the program with Michigan, which tended to recruit more outside the state in their glory days.

I don’t know if it’s the right strategic decision, but personally I think it’s more fun to root for local players. And there are only a few top-tier programs that can pull the national-recruiting thing off consistently.

This is why I was hoping you’d be the one muddying yourself in the cesspool of recruiting boards and ratings sites instead of me! I do like to look through the ranking sites to try to make sense of some things (ex: UNC and UCLA get all 5 stars always? why does Louisville keep getting them and doing nothing with them? and Syracuse? and how the hell did it happen that Ohio became a preps hoops all-star breeding ground?), even though I know very little about any one player.

I find the last two classes intriguing because of their make-up. Taller 2-guards and a couple of crazy ball-handling 1’s. They haven’t had a natural 1 ball-handling assist machine since Mateen left town. Or the classes were mismatched as pointed out above. Neitzel was too young in the ‘05 final four run, whereas the 2-guard (Hill) was primed. And so on. Now there is an emerging core of 1’s and 2’s who appear to be talented, naturals, “junkies” as Izzo put it, and they’re coming up within 1 year of each other.

The other intriguing thing is that in this entire run Izzo has never had one of those super-athletic, run the floor-type star 3/4 skilled combo forward. Roe could be the first of his kind, if he’s healthy enough and if indeed he is all that. I’m surprised to find out he shot 40% 3’s in HS. This is good. I’ve been convinced that MSU’s troubles for the last 2 years were compounded by the lack natural ball-handlers and no taller perimeter shooters. Suddenly we’re looking at 6′4″ and 6′5″ Allen and Summers and maybe still Dahlman, 6′7″ Morgan if he comes along, and perhaps 6′8″ Roe. Of course the last two should do the bulk of their work around the basket and filling fastbreak lanes. But versatility people, versatility. No offense to Lucas and Lucious, who seem like two absolutely fearless dudes.

I don’t see how Ibok and Herzog can contribute much either. Not sure how Ibok, like Gray, suddenly is supposed to understand basketball and pick up minimal offensive skills after 3 years of not getting it. And I’m not sure how Herzog puts on 40 pounds this summer after putting on 13 oz. in two years. He can have all the touch in the world, but he’s not getting a shot off if he can’t move quickly and/or without some weight on his frame.

I’d have to disagree that Izzo is not so into big men as traditional low post scoring threats, as that was all he hoped for Paul Davis. He would have been happier if Erazem Lorbek and Randolph had stayed in school. He always though Hutson could have been more of an interior scoring presence. I think it’s been more of an issue of availability of talent in the 6′9″ and above group in his usual recruiting area. For instance, how many offensively talented big men has Michigan produced at all? Not Smith, not Anagonye, not Gray. I don’t know why Izzo’s recruiting team hasn’t been very successful outside MI/OH/IL/IN, but maybe someone else has some insight on that.

And I’m not sure that a shot-blocking, nonathletic big man will ever really see major minutes in Izzo’s system. He values defensive versatility and the ability to run the floor. (This of course brings into question why both Ibok and Herzog were brought into the program.)

Inside defense is the area I really worry about next year. Neither Suton nor Gray ever have looked as effective as Naymick and Ibok is too much of a hack.

What I do like about this class and this year’s freshmen class is the balance that Izzo has restored to the program. As you point out, there is depth at every position, and depth at every class, unlike for a while these last couple years, in which key positions were really bare (ie guards), or in which certain classes were missing, which I think hurts the socialization of the players and the continuity of the program.

It is really hard to predict which players of the last two classes will turn into top contributor; but it is hard to believe that more than 1 or 2 of these 7 players will turn into total busts. are these classes that could lead to a final four? For my part, I am not willing to say yet; on the other hand, top twenty teams that make it to the sweet sixteen seem assured for the next three years, and that is good news indeed.