Did a Michigan Alumnus Piss in Jay Bilas's Cornflakes?

If only Tommy Amaker could have gotten some more calls.

N.B: Internets friends, this will be an odd week on Straight Bangin', There is an NBA season to wrap up; an NBA playoffs to froth over; a Michigan spring football to review (and use as a platform for Lloyd Carr-bashing); and who knows what else amidst the usual array of hip-hop hateration, race-conscious rambling, interneting, and political indignation. Unfortunately, there are also dinners, LSAT classes, drinks, work. I guess the point is that the week will be sports heavy and (hopefully) passionately written, but perhaps at odd intervals. For now, we'll start with an attempted decapitation of Jay Bilas.

The consensus concerning new Michigan basketball coach John Beilein appears to be that hiring him was a smart decision. Local high-school coaches say that he's made a strong first impression, people who knew him loved his work, and the general picture painted is of a basketball savant who will work tirelessly and ethically. Most of the Michigan alumni and fans with whom I've spoken are very pleased. Some, like me, are outright excited about a better future. If nothing else, it will be thrilling and refreshing to root for a team that knows what it's supposed to be doing.

But not everyone feels that way. Some are far more skeptical, and even nasty, when assessing Michigan's potential for basketball triumph. Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Jay Bilas:

Is John Beilein the right choice for Michigan? John is a guy I've been watching since he was at Canisius (1992-97). I think he's an outstanding coach. I've been an admirer of his for a long time. I thought Tommy Amaker was a good fit, but because they decided to make a change, I think John is a fabulous choice. Tommy put (the program) in really solid footing, and I think Michigan owes him a debt of gratitude for doing that. Fortunately John is taking over a solid program that has some infrastructure.

Michigan athletic director Bill Martin said he tells his coaches that their job is to be always knocking on the door of a Big Ten championship every year and knocking on the door of a national championship every few years. Is Beilein capable of those standards? They haven't been doing a lot of knocking the last 40 years. Before Amaker got there, all they were known for was cheating. I think that (statement) ignores the practical reality. ... John is as capable of a coach as Michigan can find. Unless there is a top commitment, then I think it will be a Herculean task. Down the road at Michigan State, (its facilities) are not just better, they're 10 times better. That is a huge hurdle to overcome. ... What excuses does Michigan have for other teams in the Big Ten having better facilities? You're asking a program to knock on the door without the resources.

Beilein hasn't had some of the top recruits in the past. How important do you think it is to be a good recruiter? No coach wins without good talent. John had good talent at West Virginia. Mike Gansey, Kevin Pittsnogle, even his son, Patrick, were good players. When Michigan had the Fab Five, they cheated. Everybody knew it. All you had to do was look in the parking lot. ... John has gotten good players, and you can't win without them.

How will John Beilein be able to recruit in Michigan and what do you think are the keys to successful recruiting? I don't know. John has not been at a program quite like Michigan. Michigan hasn't been a spot he has recruited in the past. Michigan is a great school and in a great conference so that is a good selling point. If a kid like Alex Legion stays, they'll be in good shape. Between coach, conference and university you have three good ones all in Michigan's favor.

(Questions came bolded; italicized emphasis is all me.)

So first off, fuck you, too, Jay. Second, Bilas and Amaker were in the same heralded, landmark Duke recruiting class, and they worked together as assistants, so it's hard to not assume that some of Bilas's vitriol is informed by whatever loyalty and compassion he feels for Amaker. And it's not as though he said the University of Michigan should be wiped off the face of the Earth. I get that. But still, "known for cheating"? That's pretty bushleague.

Beyond all that, third, this is just another instance when the lazy, overwrought conventions of sports journalism are unleashed upon the public with deleterious effect. What actual insight did a purported expert, Jay Bilas, offer during this interview? None. I feel stupider having read it. It was a bunch of tired talking points and worthless generalities. Not a single person who knows even a little bit about college basketball could have learned anything from this piece. All anyone who observes the program from an arm's length ever says about Michigan basketball is that Michigan is Michigan; the whole Ed Martin thing was bad; the school needs better facilities. A ten-year-old in Birmingham or Holland or Novi or anywhere else in Michigan who's read about Wolverine basketball in the Free Press even once in the past few years could have given this interview, minus the sniveling Duke-fraternity tinge.

The thing is, Bilas knows this. He knows that he doesn't have anything new to offer about this topic. And, he knows that absent a sustained scrutiny of Michigan hoops--something that you might fairly expect of someone paid to watch basketball, especially that played in the "power conferences," but nevertheless is not a reality since ESPN asks its on-air "analysts" to regurgitate the same ten ideas over and over until they're forced to entertain a new collective thought--he should do as his colleagues throughout the realm of sports punditry are instructed: pick an opinion; defend it as though it's the Matrix of Leadership, even if "facts" get in its way; and bludgeon your audience with this predetermined stance so that they hesitate to question you. After all, you're an expert; it says it underneath your name when those on-screen graphics pop up.

To be fair to Bilas, he's usually perceptive when the scope of discussion is narrowed down to a single game that he can closely follow (witness his work for CBS during the Tournament or the ideas he volunteers at halftime of ESPN games). He is also willing to admit that he's wrong at times, and he even goes so far as to criticize some of the less-informed media-championed myths when they clearly contravene both an ineffable sense of what's right and when public sentiment has signaled that such criticism will find a receptive audience. Kirk Herbstreit plays a similar role in the world of college football, the "maverick" among the firmly entrenched establishment who actually has some intelligence and doesn't always need cue cards. But like Bilas, he also has plenty of moments when he needlessly or wrongly digs in his heels because that's what he thinks/has been told he's supposed to do. Just visit Gunslinger Headquarters during the fall for proof. ESPN is sort of like a disease.

That Bilas can be smart about his subjects makes this interview all the more frustrating, because that wasn't the case here. In this instance, Bilas was asked to fulfill the expectations projected upon someone with his public persona, and he responded not by doing some homework but by drudging up the usual talking points and then accenting them with a obfuscatory air of authority by trafficking in inaccurate extremes.

He starts off horribly. His answer to the first question is saturated with resentment as he offers just conditional praise of Beilein because, as he makes clear, he didn't even believe that a coaching change was required. Boo-fucking-hoo. All this answer offers is the obvious sense that Bilas may use this interview to defend his friend and take some shots at Michigan. Which he does. Though the Fab Five's legacy has been tarnished, and technically deleted, those five freshmen and the era that fomented around them remain cultural touchstones in basketball circles. The Fab Five is what you think about when you think of Michigan basketball. You might also think about the much-ballyhooed Cazzie Russell era when Michigan was a national power and Russell's battles with Bill Bradley helped to define both men. So to say that before Amaker arrived, all Michigan was known for was cheating sounds petty and is perhaps tantamount to a purposeful distortion. Cheating is a sad, prominent part of the story, but surely not its first sentence.

Similarly sad is that Bilas would say that Michigan hasn't done much knocking on the doors of Big Ten and national relevancy for for years. That's forty years, dating back to 1967. I guess that a #1 ranking and title-game appearance in 1976; a 1989 national title; Final Fours in 1992 and 1993; a Big Ten title in 1998; and a steady stream of NBA players through the end of the last decade don't count. No one will hear me argue that Michigan has truly mattered in about a decade. Nor will I contend that it is on par with a basketball school like UCLA or North Carolina. But to say that there hasn't been much knocking in forty years? That just seems lazy and snarky.

Did Michigan engage in illegal activity? Yes. Has it struggled recently? Yes. That's truthful and fair game. However, is the school otherwise devoid of notable basketball history? No. Did the last coach squander a six-year window to even just make the NCAA Tournament? Yes. That's also truthful and fair game. And that's why, having come to expect more from Jay Bilas, this interview was so absurd. Worse, it wasn't even funny, one of the few redeeming things that would have come of Digger Phelps ineptly fielding these questions instead.