THE ROUNDTABLE: Harvard beats Michigan: So What?

The following represents our version of ESPN’s Sports Reporters: five Crimson columnists—Emily W. Cunningham, Malcom A. Glenn, Walter E. Howell, Jonathan Lehman, and Karan Lodha—all considering the cause and effect of Harvard’s 62-51 upset win over visiting Michigan in men’s basketball on Saturday. Knights of the Roundtable: Assemble!



EMILY: After all the glory of Saturday’s upset win over Michigan—the last-minute heroics, the screaming fans, the postgame celebration at midcourt—it seems at first glance that Tommy Amaker has arrived on the scene and, in just under a month, saved the day for Harvard basketball. This may well be true. But it’s important to realize who the Crimson played on Saturday. The squad played a Michigan team largely assembled by the man pacing its own sideline: Amaker. It was Amaker’s recruits who, despite appearing to be much more athletic on average than Harvard’s players, were out-rebounded at Lavietes. It was Amaker’s players who broke down in the contest’s final minutes, allowing the Crimson to score the game’s last 11 points en route to a win that was much more dramatic than the final score indicated. In other words, Saturday’s upset isn’t as perfect a reflection on Amaker as we might believe at first.



MALCOM: It’s true, those were Amaker’s very own recruits that his new team beat on Saturday. Some might say that speaks to the fact that his recruiting job at Michigan wasn’t all that great, but that’s only a superficial understanding: recruiting isn’t a process that occurs in a vacuum.

Who were Amaker’s old recruits playing for last Saturday night? Not Amaker, but John Beilein. Needless to say, Beilein and Amaker have different styles, different nuances and, frankly, they’re different people. The fact that Amaker and Harvard beat his old recruits speaks not to the fact that Amaker wasn’t or isn’t a good recruiter, but it speaks to the fact that recruiting is something that relies heavily on the relationships between player and coach and player and system.

Amaker’s recruits can’t be expected to perform the same under a whole new mode of leadership as they did under, well, Amaker. Perhaps they simply don’t mesh well with Beilein.

Plus, let’s also remember the fact that Amaker is 2-0 in the Michigan-Harvard showdown over the last two years. His Wolverines beat the Crimson big in Ann Arbor a year ago, and his upset win over the weekend makes one thing abundantly clear: no matter the players he has, whether they’re his own recruits or recruited by somebody else, Amaker is a really good coach.

Pun intended, Amaker has been the X-factor, and that’s why his team is undefeated in this series’ recent history.



WALT: But that doesn’t mean Beilein is a bad coach; rather, Michigan is a program in transition. The program has changed dramatically in one year.

Amaker’s coaching philosophy is about one thing: defense, defense, and more defense. He wants smart players who can rebound, get up and down the court, and play all-around tough D.

New Michigan coach John Beilein plays an altogether different style. Following the lead of Dave Chapelle’s Prince, he wants his players to “Shoot the J. Shoot it!” Last season at West Virginia, Beilein took a team with not much talent to the NCAA Tournament—because the players shot threes at will. Beilein wants gun-slingers, not defensive stalwarts. The Wolverines are having obvious problems adjusting.

Amaker has turned this Harvard program around. He has given it confidence and notoriety that the team has not possessed in many years. He deserves the praises coming his way.

But Beilein should not receive a pink slip in turn.

Amaker has succeeded because of his circumstances, just as Beilein has failed because of his. Beilein has to change his team’s identity, whereas Amaker has total freedom to institute his own. Under former coach Frank Sullivan, the Crimson had no real identity. As a result, Harvard was a blank canvas ready to be painted.

Beilein must first erase, then start all over. Give Beilein time and I believe he’ll succeed.



JON: As Walt mentioned, Beilein is a system coach. But it’s a system he’s had a lot of success with. Beilein has piloted three different teams (Canisius, Richmond, and West Virginia) to 20-win seasons and NCAA Tournament berths. His last three seasons in Morgantown, he won 73 games. But his best Mountaineers teams featured an odd tandem of stars: Mike Gansey, a shooting guard who might not have been able to dunk but sure could shoot, and Kevin Pittsnogle, a 6’11 forward who could pass and shoot the trey. Their offense, though it hoisted more than its share of threes, was primarily based on motion and passing. X’s and O’s over athleticism.

Right now, it seems, Beilein doesn’t have the right players for his system. He has Amaker’s players, including a guy (DeShawn Sims) who jumped so high on Saturday he hurt his face on the rim, but couldn’t recognize a double-team. He has Manny Harris, a guard who was incredibly adept at improvising and scoring, and, it appeared, forgetting that he wasn’t supposed to improvise.

That’s why it must have killed Beilein on Saturday to see Andrew Pusar cut baseline for easy layup after easy layup—that was Gansey’s favorite move. Or to see Drew Housman and Jeremy Lin confidently work the ball around the Wolverines’ zone D waiting for the open look.

Thanks to Amaker, Beilein had the size and speed, the outright skill, at his disposal to beat Harvard. But he didn’t exploit that fully because he’s trying to teach a system to a very young Michigan squad that he thinks will work in the long term. And he’ll recruit players that suit that style. The question is: are Amaker’s reported bumper crop of six highly-touted incoming recruits the electrifying bruising-face-on-rim, clear-out-and-dribble-drive type or the kinds of hoopsters that can mesh with the group of gritty, poised, I’ll say it, smart players that played all-out defense, made smart passes, and came through in the clutch to deliver the W this weekend? We can only wait and see.



KARAN: You know, we can talk all we want about recruiting and coaching, but let’s not forget about the players on the court. While the Wolverines might have had greater talent, this was a much more important game emotionally for the Crimson.

Sure, Michigan was playing against its old coach, and I’m sure Wolverine players (and fans) are sick of one NIT berth after another. But let’s face it: Michigan came into Lavietes Pavilion expecting to run all over a Harvard team that has never been good against Ivy League opponents, let alone Big Ten squads. For the Wolverines, this was more of a scrimmage to get ready for teams like Illinois and Ohio State, not a game that would help them define themselves and set the tone for the season.

On the other hand, Harvard has had this date circled on its calendar for months. Not only was the Crimson trying to get a revenge win for its new coach, but it knew that it had the chance to make a statement on national television. For perhaps the first time ever, the television cameras came to Lavietes, and Harvard had to hold a lottery to dole out tickets to the thousands of eager students. A victory over Michigan would mean the arrival of Amaker, but also the establishment of the Crimson as legitimate Ivy League contender. Heck, just look at how much newsprint this paper devoted to the game!

Much like the famous Appalachian State upset a few months ago, this game was much more important to the Wolverines’ opponent than it was to Michigan itself. Wanting it more, Harvard went out there and got the ‘W’ - and, at least for a moment, the attention of the nation.



And that, at least for the Crimson, is all that matters.

As for the roundtable: class dismissed!