Reset your password
Enter the phone number associated with your account and we will send you a confirmation code to reset your password
New to Lockerverse?
Create an accountLOCKERVERSE
LOCKERVERSE
Enter the phone number associated with your account and we will send you a confirmation code to reset your password
New to Lockerverse?
Create an accountLOCKERVERSE
Moneyball ProAm brings crowds of Spartans fans hoping to get a glimpse of this year's MSU Men's Basketball roster
Last week, I published an article exploring a question that few Michigan State stakeholders had previously considered: What options exist when stakeholders believe a university has been harmed by governance failures?The response was immediate.For the detailed analysis, read the article here if you haven't yet:Beyond Elections: What accountability might look like when MSU stakeholders believe their university has been harmedThe TLDR version of the article goes something like this:In the corporate world, shareholders sometimes have the ability to bring what is known as a derivative lawsuit. The theory is that if directors or officers breach their fiduciary duties and harm the corporation, the corporation itself is the injured party. Under certain circumstances, shareholders can seek relief on the corporation's behalf. Michigan State is not a corporation, and it does not have shareholders. However, trustees still owe fiduciary duties to the university they govern. That raises an interesting question: What options exist when stakeholders believe the institution itself has been harmed by those entrusted to lead it? That question sparked a broader discussion about accountability, stakeholder rights, governance, and whether remedies exist beyond simply waiting for the next trustee election.In the days that followed publication, hundreds of Spartans voluntarily submitted their names and email addresses through an online form expressing interest in learning more about the discussion and any potential next steps.The individuals who signed up represent a broad cross-section of the Michigan State community, including alumni, donors, season ticket holders, parents, faculty, students, and others who care deeply about the future of the university.For many, the article was about a different way of thinking about accountability. For years, most discussions involving Michigan State's Board of Trustees have focused on elections. Trustees stand for election every eight years, voters render their verdict, and the cycle begins again.The article explored the possibility that accountability may not begin and end there.That idea clearly resonated.This week, the first update was sent - from ConcernedSpartans1855@gmail.com - to those who joined the email list.The email informed participants that a group operating under the temporary name "Concerned Spartans" has begun organizing and is currently focused on gathering perspectives, evaluating options, and determining what path forward, if any, makes sense.According to the email, the group is in the process of assembling an advisory board composed of individuals with experience in higher education, governance, law, business, communications, fundraising, and university affairs. The objective is to ensure that future discussions are informed by expertise, grounded in facts, and focused on the long-term interests of Michigan State University.The advisory board concept reflects the seriousness with which many participants are approaching the conversation.The original article was intentionally exploratory. It did not accuse any trustee of wrongdoing. It did not conclude that litigation was warranted. It simply examined a legal and governance framework that most university stakeholders have never considered.What followed was a realization that many Spartans are hungry for a deeper conversation about governance than the one that currently exists. That should not come as a surprise. Michigan State has lost its president. Michigan State has lost its athletic director.The university now finds itself searching for two of its most important leaders while continuing to navigate highly public disputes involving members of the Board of Trustees.Reasonable people can disagree about the causes of those developments. Reasonable people can disagree about whether governance problems exist. Reasonable people can disagree about what solutions, if any, should be pursued.What has become increasingly difficult to dispute, however, is that many stakeholders are looking for a more substantive conversation about accountability. At this point, the most significant development is not that a particular course of action has emerged. It is that hundreds of Spartans have signaled they want to be part of the discussion.The original article asked whether accountability tools exist beyond elections. The response from hundreds of Michigan State stakeholders suggests there is considerable interest in finding out.Those interested in learning more and receiving future updates can continue to add their names through this signup form linked in this article:From Conversation to Action: Gauging interest in stakeholder accountability at Michigan State
A couple days ago, I published an article exploring a concept that most Michigan State stakeholders have likely never considered (I hadn't until now).It explored a simple question:What remedies exist when stakeholders believe a university has been harmed by those entrusted to govern it?The discussion centered on a legal concept commonly seen in the corporate world. When shareholders believe directors or officers have harmed a corporation, there are circumstances under which they may seek to pursue claims on behalf of the corporation itself. The corporation is viewed as the injured party.Universities are not corporations and do not have shareholders. Yet trustees still owe fiduciary duties to the institutions they govern. That reality raises an interesting question: What happens when stakeholders begin asking whether the institution itself has suffered harm?For the detailed analysis, read the article here if you haven't yet:Beyond Elections: What accountability might look like when MSU stakeholders believe their university has been harmedThe response to that article has exceeded every expectation I had.Hundreds of Spartans have reacted and replied: alumni, donors, faculty, students, season ticket holders, and fans. People from across the political spectrum.Many agreed. A few disagreed. Others raised important questions and concerns.But one theme appeared again and again: people are tired of feeling powerless.For years, discussions surrounding Michigan State governance have been reduced to elections (for those who pay attention to the races at the very bottom of the ballot), social media arguments, and public statements. Yet it is now obvious that many stakeholders increasingly believe those mechanisms are inadequate when concerns arise between election cycles. Since publication of the article, a group of stakeholders has begun discussing whether further exploration of these issues is warranted. Those conversations have included questions about governance reform, transparency, fiduciary obligations, stakeholder rights, and what options may exist under Michigan law.At this stage, no conclusions have been reached. No litigation has been authorized. No claims have been made. No organization has been formally established.What exists today, though, is interest. The next step is determining whether that interest extends beyond a handful of conversations amongst a dozen or so influential Spartans. If you are interested in receiving information as these discussions continue, please add your name and email address to the form below.Signing up does not mean you support litigation. Signing up does not commit you to any course of action whatsoever.It simply indicates that you believe the conversation is worth having and would like to stay informed as Spartan stakeholders explore what accountability, transparency, and governance reform might look like at Michigan State University.The first article explored a theory. This effort seeks to determine whether enough Spartans believe that theory is worth examining further.If you would like to be part of that conversation, add your name and email address: [GOOGLE FORM LINK]The future of Michigan State will not be determined by a handful of trustees, donors, administrators, or writers.It will be determined by whether Spartans are willing to engage when the institution they love faces difficult questions.This is one of those moments. Let's see where this might go.
Last week, I published an article exploring a question that few Michigan State stakeholders had previously considered: What options exist when stakeholders believe a university has been harmed by governance failures?The response was immediate.For the detailed analysis, read the article here if you haven't yet:Beyond Elections: What accountability might look like when MSU stakeholders believe their university has been harmedThe TLDR version of the article goes something like this:In the corporate world, shareholders sometimes have the ability to bring what is known as a derivative lawsuit. The theory is that if directors or officers breach their fiduciary duties and harm the corporation, the corporation itself is the injured party. Under certain circumstances, shareholders can seek relief on the corporation's behalf. Michigan State is not a corporation, and it does not have shareholders. However, trustees still owe fiduciary duties to the university they govern. That raises an interesting question: What options exist when stakeholders believe the institution itself has been harmed by those entrusted to lead it? That question sparked a broader discussion about accountability, stakeholder rights, governance, and whether remedies exist beyond simply waiting for the next trustee election.In the days that followed publication, hundreds of Spartans voluntarily submitted their names and email addresses through an online form expressing interest in learning more about the discussion and any potential next steps.The individuals who signed up represent a broad cross-section of the Michigan State community, including alumni, donors, season ticket holders, parents, faculty, students, and others who care deeply about the future of the university.For many, the article was about a different way of thinking about accountability. For years, most discussions involving Michigan State's Board of Trustees have focused on elections. Trustees stand for election every eight years, voters render their verdict, and the cycle begins again.The article explored the possibility that accountability may not begin and end there.That idea clearly resonated.This week, the first update was sent - from ConcernedSpartans1855@gmail.com - to those who joined the email list.The email informed participants that a group operating under the temporary name "Concerned Spartans" has begun organizing and is currently focused on gathering perspectives, evaluating options, and determining what path forward, if any, makes sense.According to the email, the group is in the process of assembling an advisory board composed of individuals with experience in higher education, governance, law, business, communications, fundraising, and university affairs. The objective is to ensure that future discussions are informed by expertise, grounded in facts, and focused on the long-term interests of Michigan State University.The advisory board concept reflects the seriousness with which many participants are approaching the conversation.The original article was intentionally exploratory. It did not accuse any trustee of wrongdoing. It did not conclude that litigation was warranted. It simply examined a legal and governance framework that most university stakeholders have never considered.What followed was a realization that many Spartans are hungry for a deeper conversation about governance than the one that currently exists. That should not come as a surprise. Michigan State has lost its president. Michigan State has lost its athletic director.The university now finds itself searching for two of its most important leaders while continuing to navigate highly public disputes involving members of the Board of Trustees.Reasonable people can disagree about the causes of those developments. Reasonable people can disagree about whether governance problems exist. Reasonable people can disagree about what solutions, if any, should be pursued.What has become increasingly difficult to dispute, however, is that many stakeholders are looking for a more substantive conversation about accountability. At this point, the most significant development is not that a particular course of action has emerged. It is that hundreds of Spartans have signaled they want to be part of the discussion.The original article asked whether accountability tools exist beyond elections. The response from hundreds of Michigan State stakeholders suggests there is considerable interest in finding out.Those interested in learning more and receiving future updates can continue to add their names through this signup form linked in this article:From Conversation to Action: Gauging interest in stakeholder accountability at Michigan State
A couple days ago, I published an article exploring a concept that most Michigan State stakeholders have likely never considered (I hadn't until now).It explored a simple question:What remedies exist when stakeholders believe a university has been harmed by those entrusted to govern it?The discussion centered on a legal concept commonly seen in the corporate world. When shareholders believe directors or officers have harmed a corporation, there are circumstances under which they may seek to pursue claims on behalf of the corporation itself. The corporation is viewed as the injured party.Universities are not corporations and do not have shareholders. Yet trustees still owe fiduciary duties to the institutions they govern. That reality raises an interesting question: What happens when stakeholders begin asking whether the institution itself has suffered harm?For the detailed analysis, read the article here if you haven't yet:Beyond Elections: What accountability might look like when MSU stakeholders believe their university has been harmedThe response to that article has exceeded every expectation I had.Hundreds of Spartans have reacted and replied: alumni, donors, faculty, students, season ticket holders, and fans. People from across the political spectrum.Many agreed. A few disagreed. Others raised important questions and concerns.But one theme appeared again and again: people are tired of feeling powerless.For years, discussions surrounding Michigan State governance have been reduced to elections (for those who pay attention to the races at the very bottom of the ballot), social media arguments, and public statements. Yet it is now obvious that many stakeholders increasingly believe those mechanisms are inadequate when concerns arise between election cycles. Since publication of the article, a group of stakeholders has begun discussing whether further exploration of these issues is warranted. Those conversations have included questions about governance reform, transparency, fiduciary obligations, stakeholder rights, and what options may exist under Michigan law.At this stage, no conclusions have been reached. No litigation has been authorized. No claims have been made. No organization has been formally established.What exists today, though, is interest. The next step is determining whether that interest extends beyond a handful of conversations amongst a dozen or so influential Spartans. If you are interested in receiving information as these discussions continue, please add your name and email address to the form below.Signing up does not mean you support litigation. Signing up does not commit you to any course of action whatsoever.It simply indicates that you believe the conversation is worth having and would like to stay informed as Spartan stakeholders explore what accountability, transparency, and governance reform might look like at Michigan State University.The first article explored a theory. This effort seeks to determine whether enough Spartans believe that theory is worth examining further.If you would like to be part of that conversation, add your name and email address: [GOOGLE FORM LINK]The future of Michigan State will not be determined by a handful of trustees, donors, administrators, or writers.It will be determined by whether Spartans are willing to engage when the institution they love faces difficult questions.This is one of those moments. Let's see where this might go.
For months, the conversation surrounding Michigan State has focused on personalities, politics, and boardroom drama. Trustees have traded public criticisms. Ethics disputes have dominated headlines. Questions have been raised about governance, communication, and board conduct. It's not been fun, by any stretch. And now, Michigan State has lost its president.Michigan State has lost its athletic director.The university faces the cost, disruption, and uncertainty of replacing two of its most important leaders in the span of a few weeks.At some point, MSU stakeholders must ask the question:What remedies exist when fiduciaries (trustees, in this case) are alleged to have harmed the institution they are entrusted to govern?Most people are familiar with elections as a mechanism of accountability. Trustees stand for election. Voters decide whether they remain in office. But that only happens every eight years. What many people do not realize - and I just recently learned - is that elections are not the only form of accountability available to organizations.In the corporate world, shareholders have a legal mechanism known as a derivative lawsuit. Sounds fancy, but the concept is straightforward. When directors or officers allegedly breach their fiduciary duties and cause harm to the corporation, the corporation itself is the victim. If those responsible for governing the corporation refuse to act, shareholders may seek to pursue claims on behalf of the corporation.Universities are not publicly traded corporations, and Michigan State does not have shareholders. But the underlying fiduciary principles are remarkably similar, or so I'm told by lawyers who know this stuff.Trustees owe duties to the institution they govern. Those duties generally include the duty of loyalty and the duty of care.The duty of loyalty requires fiduciaries (trustees) to place the interests of the institution above personal interests, political agendas, personal disputes, or individual ambitions.The duty of care requires fiduciaries (trustees) to exercise appropriate judgment, remain informed, and make decisions in a manner reasonably believed to be in the institution's best interests. Interestingly enough, these are not goals - they are actual legal obligations.Before we get into it, it is worth noting that fiduciary-duty litigation against university trustees is relatively uncommon.Most large-scale lawsuits involving universities are brought by students rather than stakeholders challenging governance. In recent years, higher education has seen a wave of class-action litigation involving antitrust claims, financial aid practices, tuition disputes, admissions policies, and other student-focused issues.Those cases have focused on the relationship between universities and students.Lawyers tell me that a fiduciary-duty claim is fundamentally different, though, as it focuses on the relationship between trustees and the institution itself. And that distinction helps explain why governance litigation is relatively rare.Trustees are often viewed through a political lens. Yet trustees are more than elected officials. They are fiduciaries with legal obligations to act in the best interests of the institution they govern.Lawyers also tell me that the relative rarity of fiduciary litigation does not make those obligations any less real. If anything, it may simply reflect the fact that stakeholders don't usually view university governance through that framework.However, when stakeholders begin asking why a university has lost key executives, why confidence in leadership has eroded, why governance controversies dominate public discussion, and why the institution appears consumed by internal conflict, they are ultimately asking whether the institution itself has been harmed.That is where the conversation becomes significantly more serious.My first reaction to this idea was that no lawsuit could succeed because there doesn't appear to be obvious damages - but that assumption showed my ignorance to the nature of fiduciary litigation.The potential harms to a university actually extend far and wide.Consider the costs associated with replacing a university president. National presidential searches routinely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars once search firms, travel expenses, candidate evaluations, staff time, and transition costs are considered.Now add the cost of replacing an athletic director.Add the disruption to fundraising efforts.Add the uncertainty experienced by donors.Add the impact on strategic initiatives that were championed by departing executives.Add the costs of investigations, outside counsel, public relations responses, and crisis management.Add reputational harm that may affect donor confidence, student recruitment, faculty recruitment, and institutional standing.None of these damages exist in isolation; collectively, though, they represent real costs borne by the university.Whether those costs can be traced to particular conduct is a question for evidence. The more immediate question is whether anyone seriously believes a university suffers no harm when it loses both its president and athletic director within the same month.In many fiduciary cases, however, damages are not even the primary objective.Discovery is.Most members of the public never see how institutional decisions are made. They see public meetings. They see press releases. They see carefully crafted statements prepared by attorneys and communications professionals.They do not see internal communications.A lawsuit changes that.Discovery can compel the production of emails, text messages, meeting materials, notes, memos, and testimony under oath.Communications between trustees.Communications with administrators.Communications with donors.Communications regarding executive retention.Communications concerning governance disputes.The legal process provides a mechanism to examine actual evidence.Perhaps that evidence would support the actions of university leaders. Perhaps it would not. But the determination would be made through documents and testimony rather than speculation.Another commonly overlooked issue involves indemnification. Indemnification in this case basically means that the university will pay the legal bills for trustees. Trustees usually assume that the institution will defend them and pay legal expenses if they are sued for actions taken in their official capacity. In many circumstances, that assumption is correct. However, indemnification is not always automatic, unlimited, or unconditional.Lawyers tell me that whether a fiduciary is entitled to indemnification often depends upon whether they acted in good faith and in a manner reasonably believed to be in the institution's best interests. The governing documents, applicable statutes, insurance policies, and facts of a particular case all matter. The details vary considerably from case to case.The broader point is that fiduciary litigation can create questions about personal exposure that trustees never expect to confront. It also helps explain why many governance cases never reach a final verdict.The public often imagines lawsuits ending with dramatic courtroom victories and massive financial judgments. In reality, though, I'm told many governance disputes are resolved through settlement - and those settlements frequently focus on institutional reform rather than on money.And now we're getting somewhere. The remedies in a settlement like this can include governance changes, enhanced transparency requirements, independent oversight mechanisms, revised ethics policies, new reporting requirements, committee restructuring, restrictions on certain conduct, or - this one is important - voluntary resignations.The objective is often not punishment; the objective is protecting the institution.A stakeholder concerned about governance failures is not really seeking financial compensation; the goal is to ensure that the institution is governed effectively going forward.In this scenario, the question of standing would also become important.Who has the right to bring such a claim?The answer depends upon state law, the structure of the institution, and the nature of the claims asserted. Different jurisdictions recognize different pathways for stakeholder involvement in nonprofit governance disputes. In some situations, attorneys general play a significant role. In others, donors, members, or other stakeholders may have avenues to seek relief.Any serious effort would require careful legal analysis specific to the state of Michigan and Michigan State University's governance structure.To be clear, none of this is to suggest that any trustee has violated a fiduciary duty. Nor is it to suggest that litigation is necessarily warranted. Those are conclusions that require evidence, investigation, and legal analysis.But stakeholders should understand that accountability does not begin and end with elections. Michigan State Trustees are not merely political figures. They are fiduciaries entrusted with governing one of the nation's leading public universities. When stakeholders believe governance failures have imposed substantial costs on an institution, elections are one remedy. Public criticism is another. Organized donor action is another. Governance reform efforts are another. And, in certain circumstances, fiduciary litigation might also become part of the conversation.For years, discussions about Michigan State's Board of Trustees have centered on politics. Perhaps it is time to discuss governance instead.After all, the university has now lost both its president and its athletic director within the same month. Whether those departures are connected to board conduct is a question that deserves careful examination.If stakeholders ultimately conclude that the institution has been harmed, they should understand that the law provides mechanisms designed specifically for those situations. The question is not whether accountability tools exist. The question is whether those who care about Michigan State are willing to use them.
Moneyball ProAm brings crowds of Spartans fans hoping to get a glimpse of this year's MSU Men's Basketball roster
Last week, I published an article exploring a question that few Michigan State stakeholders had previously considered: What options exist when stakeholders believe a university has been harmed by governance failures?The response was immediate.For the detailed analysis, read the article here if you haven't yet:Beyond Elections: What accountability might look like when MSU stakeholders believe their university has been harmedThe TLDR version of the article goes something like this:In the corporate world, shareholders sometimes have the ability to bring what is known as a derivative lawsuit. The theory is that if directors or officers breach their fiduciary duties and harm the corporation, the corporation itself is the injured party. Under certain circumstances, shareholders can seek relief on the corporation's behalf. Michigan State is not a corporation, and it does not have shareholders. However, trustees still owe fiduciary duties to the university they govern. That raises an interesting question: What options exist when stakeholders believe the institution itself has been harmed by those entrusted to lead it? That question sparked a broader discussion about accountability, stakeholder rights, governance, and whether remedies exist beyond simply waiting for the next trustee election.In the days that followed publication, hundreds of Spartans voluntarily submitted their names and email addresses through an online form expressing interest in learning more about the discussion and any potential next steps.The individuals who signed up represent a broad cross-section of the Michigan State community, including alumni, donors, season ticket holders, parents, faculty, students, and others who care deeply about the future of the university.For many, the article was about a different way of thinking about accountability. For years, most discussions involving Michigan State's Board of Trustees have focused on elections. Trustees stand for election every eight years, voters render their verdict, and the cycle begins again.The article explored the possibility that accountability may not begin and end there.That idea clearly resonated.This week, the first update was sent - from ConcernedSpartans1855@gmail.com - to those who joined the email list.The email informed participants that a group operating under the temporary name "Concerned Spartans" has begun organizing and is currently focused on gathering perspectives, evaluating options, and determining what path forward, if any, makes sense.According to the email, the group is in the process of assembling an advisory board composed of individuals with experience in higher education, governance, law, business, communications, fundraising, and university affairs. The objective is to ensure that future discussions are informed by expertise, grounded in facts, and focused on the long-term interests of Michigan State University.The advisory board concept reflects the seriousness with which many participants are approaching the conversation.The original article was intentionally exploratory. It did not accuse any trustee of wrongdoing. It did not conclude that litigation was warranted. It simply examined a legal and governance framework that most university stakeholders have never considered.What followed was a realization that many Spartans are hungry for a deeper conversation about governance than the one that currently exists. That should not come as a surprise. Michigan State has lost its president. Michigan State has lost its athletic director.The university now finds itself searching for two of its most important leaders while continuing to navigate highly public disputes involving members of the Board of Trustees.Reasonable people can disagree about the causes of those developments. Reasonable people can disagree about whether governance problems exist. Reasonable people can disagree about what solutions, if any, should be pursued.What has become increasingly difficult to dispute, however, is that many stakeholders are looking for a more substantive conversation about accountability. At this point, the most significant development is not that a particular course of action has emerged. It is that hundreds of Spartans have signaled they want to be part of the discussion.The original article asked whether accountability tools exist beyond elections. The response from hundreds of Michigan State stakeholders suggests there is considerable interest in finding out.Those interested in learning more and receiving future updates can continue to add their names through this signup form linked in this article:From Conversation to Action: Gauging interest in stakeholder accountability at Michigan State
A couple days ago, I published an article exploring a concept that most Michigan State stakeholders have likely never considered (I hadn't until now).It explored a simple question:What remedies exist when stakeholders believe a university has been harmed by those entrusted to govern it?The discussion centered on a legal concept commonly seen in the corporate world. When shareholders believe directors or officers have harmed a corporation, there are circumstances under which they may seek to pursue claims on behalf of the corporation itself. The corporation is viewed as the injured party.Universities are not corporations and do not have shareholders. Yet trustees still owe fiduciary duties to the institutions they govern. That reality raises an interesting question: What happens when stakeholders begin asking whether the institution itself has suffered harm?For the detailed analysis, read the article here if you haven't yet:Beyond Elections: What accountability might look like when MSU stakeholders believe their university has been harmedThe response to that article has exceeded every expectation I had.Hundreds of Spartans have reacted and replied: alumni, donors, faculty, students, season ticket holders, and fans. People from across the political spectrum.Many agreed. A few disagreed. Others raised important questions and concerns.But one theme appeared again and again: people are tired of feeling powerless.For years, discussions surrounding Michigan State governance have been reduced to elections (for those who pay attention to the races at the very bottom of the ballot), social media arguments, and public statements. Yet it is now obvious that many stakeholders increasingly believe those mechanisms are inadequate when concerns arise between election cycles. Since publication of the article, a group of stakeholders has begun discussing whether further exploration of these issues is warranted. Those conversations have included questions about governance reform, transparency, fiduciary obligations, stakeholder rights, and what options may exist under Michigan law.At this stage, no conclusions have been reached. No litigation has been authorized. No claims have been made. No organization has been formally established.What exists today, though, is interest. The next step is determining whether that interest extends beyond a handful of conversations amongst a dozen or so influential Spartans. If you are interested in receiving information as these discussions continue, please add your name and email address to the form below.Signing up does not mean you support litigation. Signing up does not commit you to any course of action whatsoever.It simply indicates that you believe the conversation is worth having and would like to stay informed as Spartan stakeholders explore what accountability, transparency, and governance reform might look like at Michigan State University.The first article explored a theory. This effort seeks to determine whether enough Spartans believe that theory is worth examining further.If you would like to be part of that conversation, add your name and email address: [GOOGLE FORM LINK]The future of Michigan State will not be determined by a handful of trustees, donors, administrators, or writers.It will be determined by whether Spartans are willing to engage when the institution they love faces difficult questions.This is one of those moments. Let's see where this might go.
On Tuesday morning, the Michigan State hockey team added another talented recruit, as they seek to get over the hump and win their first NCAA Championship since 2007, while looking to "four-peat" as Big Ten Champions.Ethan Belchetz, a 6'5" 227-pound 2008-born forward - and projected 1st round pick in the upcoming 2026 NHL Draft - announced his commitment to the Spartans.https://www.instagram.com/p/DYPgEOWEVfl/?igsh=MWt5enU1aGgwZGMzMQ==Belchetz, an Oakville, Ontario native, played last season with the Windsor Spitfires in the Ontario Hockey League, registering 34 goals and 25 assists in 57 games played. Belchetz missed the Spitfires end of the regular season and playoffs with a broken clavicle suffered in early March. Belchetz joins MSU commits defensemen Chase Reid, forward Nikita Klepov, forward Brooks Rogowski (expected Fall 2027), defensemen Tommy Bleyl (expected Fall 2027), and forward Jack Hextall as players who have all been projected in NHL mock drafts to go in the first round.These players will join forward Cullen Potter (1st round 2025), forward Cayden Lindstrom (1st round 2024), forward Ryker Lee (1st round 2025), incoming freshman forward Mason West (1st round 2025), and incoming freshman goaltender Joshua Ravensbergen (1st round 2025) as first rounders all on the same roster.Belchetz is a left hand shot, and I would slot him somewhere in the top three lines as left wing - likely first or second line - with a center like Cullen Potter or Cayden Lindstrom beside him. Here is what scouts have said about Belchetz...Corey Pronman (The Athletic):"Belchetz was once thought of as a potential top-five pick due to his massive 6-foot-5 frame, hard elements and being able to score. He didn’t have a great season, though, and scouts have concerns about his pace."Scott Wheeler (The Athletic):"Belchetz is an extremely physically advanced winger who was the No. 1 pick in the 2024 OHL draft and was 6-foot-5 and over 220 pounds as a 16-year-old last season. He got people talking when he got off to a hot start to his rookie season with the Spitfires last year, picking up two points in his debut before a four-goal, six-point night in his third OHL game. He also had a solid tournament for gold medal-winning Canada White at U17s, though I did think he was less impactful in the higher-pace semifinal and final.He played well (without dominating) on a disappointing team at Hlinka, too, imposing himself at times on the puck and making some plays through the middle. After some dominant stretches to start this season, though, his production leveled off for the second year in a row, and then he broke his clavicle in early March, ending his season with the title-chasing Spits. In my live viewings in the early fall, I thought he looked better than Flyers first-rounder Jack Nesbitt on Windsor’s top line, and there was a lot of early excitement. He had NHL clubs drooling over his hulking frame, legit skill/scoring and developing playmaking and pace then, too. But following a quiet CHL USA Prospects Challenge, he hit a bit of a wall for a long stretch before the injury, finishing his season on a bit of a downspell.The continued development of his wall game, so that he's more focused on bumping players off the puck and making a quick play off the boards, will be critical in him realizing his potential. His feet can be a little heavy out of the blocks, and his stride can look a little clunky, but he can really get around the ice and drive the middle once he gets moving. And while some of his impact is driven by his sheer size and his ability to stay over pucks and drive into spots, he also has strong offensive tools, he handles well into congested areas, he's comfortable going to his backhand and he can really shoot the puck. When he's at his best, he looks like a force out there. Think Matthew Knies if it all comes together. Someone is going to make that bet fairly early, even if most softened on where they were on him in October/November. Before the injury, he was still on pace for 41 goals."
There's been a boat load of news from the Michigan State hockey program since its season ended
The Spartan hockey team looks to get over the hump in the NCAA Tournament
It was a contested recruitment, but Michigan State is keeping 2027 three-star Detroit safety/athlete Don Spillers III in the Great Lakes State, as he announced his commitment to the Spartans on Monday.MSU has pursued the Martin Luther King Jr. Senior High School (Detroit, Michigan) standout for quite some time. The Spartans originally offered him a scholarship in June of 2025 as a wide receiver under then-head coach Jonathan Smith and wide receivers coach Courtney Hawkins after an impressive performance at Michigan State's 7-on-7 event. Following the transition from Smith (who was fired after the 2025 season) to Pat Fitzgerald now running the program in 2026, Michigan State quickly re-offered Spillers in December of 2025 and he remained a priority for the Spartans. However, MSU eventually started primarily recruiting him on the defensive side of the ball as a safety under Fitzgerald, defensive coordinator Joe Rossi, safeties coach James Adams and the rest of the staff. Of note, Fitzgerald retained Hawkins on his 2026 staff from Smith’s staff (same with Rossi and Adams) and Spillers remains close with the wide receivers coach as well. The door is still somewhat open for Spillers to play wideout.Spillers took his official visit to Michigan State during the weekend of May 29 through May 31, and he has taken several unofficial visits to East Lansing throughout his recruitment as well. He also took an official visit to Illinois during the weekend of June 5 through June 7. Spillers was originally planning to officially visit Louisville as well, but ultimately opted not to take that trip. Sources tell Spartans Illustrated that Spillers returned to Michigan State for an unofficial visit on June 12. He was also in East Lansing on June 14 while MSU hosted a 7-on-7 event. Spillers committed to the Spartans shortly after those trips.The Fighting Illini were considered the Spartans' biggest threat. Illinois and head coach Bret Bielema were recruiting Spillers as a wide receiver, but it was his relationship with defensive backs coach Corey Parker, a fellow Detroit native, that was driving things for the Illini. However, Spillers has even stronger bonds with the MSU coaches and has decided to pledge to the Spartans. In addition to Michigan State, Illinois and Louisville, Spillers earned scholarship offers from Michigan, Maryland, Missouri, Pittsburgh, Purdue, Southern Mississippi, Western Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Toledo, Bowling Green, Miami (OH), Ohio, Massachusetts and others.Spillers ranks as the No. 881 prospect overall, No. 63 athlete and No. 14 recruit in the state of Michigan in the 2027 class, according to the 247Sports Composite rankings.Meanwhile, according to the Rivals/On3 Industry rankings, Spillers ranks as the No. 1,044 prospect nationally, No. 139 wide receiver and No. 19 player in Michigan in the 2027 cycle.https://www.instagram.com/p/DZAcjUzkQ1m/?img_index=1At 6-foot-2 and 195 pounds, Spillers is a versatile athlete who could play on either side of the ball at the college level. However, as mentioned, Spillers is expected to line up in the defensive backfield for the Spartans as a safety. With that said, Spillers could line up on offense at times we well.With Spillers now committed, MSU's 2027 recruiting class currently includes 15 total scholarship pledges. Spillers teams up with fellow three-star prospect Ty'ire Clark as the two safeties in the group. The Spartans also have 2027 commitments from four-star offensive lineman Caleb Johnson, four-star defensive end Ohimai Ozolu, three-star offensive tackle Jack Carlson, three-star interior offensive lineman Grant Adloff, three-star wide receiver Zach Forbish, three-star EDGE Lawrence Kanneh, three-star EDGE/defensive lineman Jack Schuler, three-star cornerback Cordaro Parham, three-star linebacker Henry Sakalas, three-star linebacker Matthew Brady, three-star quarterback Eli Stumpf and three-star running back Savior Owens. Additionally, Michigan State has a commitment from preferred walk-on wide receiver Brendan Fitzgerald. He is the son of MSU head coach Pat Fitzgerald.
Michigan State has received a verbal commitment from highly-coveted class of 2027 four-star offensive lineman, and top-250 prospect nationally, Caleb Johnson. He is a top priority recruit for the Spartans. https://www.instagram.com/p/DZh7p6EuZ1I/?igsh=Z2p2OXdjZmZmb2xuJohnson currently attends Noblesville High School in Noblesville, Indiana. He took an official visit to MSU during the weekend of May 29 through May 31. Johnson also took official visits to Indiana — the defending national champion and his in-state program — from May 15 through May 17, and Iowa from June 5 through June 7. He was also expected to take an official visit to Missouri for the current weekend of June 12 through June 14 as well, but he opted not to take that trip. Johnson also took unofficial visits to East Lansing on Jan. 30 for a junior day and on March 21 to watch Michigan State participate in a spring practice. Ultimately, the Spartans were able to win out in Johnson’s highly-contested recruitment. His multiple trips to East Lansing and relationships with head coach Pat Fitzgerald, offensive line coach Nick Tabacca, offensive coordinator Nick Sheridan and assistant offensive line coach Colin Johnson, among others, proved to be pivotal for the Green and White. “What stood out to me in the visit was the brotherhood between the team in the short amount of time that Coach Fitzgerald has been there,” Johnson told Spartans Illustrated following the official visit. “It really impressed me and is something I would definitely want to be a part of. But also what stood out is their vision for me and their belief in me as a player.”According to the 247Sports Composite rankings. Johnson currently ranks as the No. 245 player nationally, No. 11 interior offensive lineman and No. 3 player in the state of Indiana for the 2027 recruiting cycle. Comparatively, Johnson ranks as the No. 211 prospect overall, No. 17 offensive tackle and No. 2 recruit in Indiana in the Rivals/On3 Industry rankings. The 6-foot-5, 275-pound Johnson has positional flexibility along the offensive line, as the four-star prospect can play as a tackle or in the interior as a guard. In addition to Michigan State, Indiana, Iowa and Missouri, Johnson earned scholarship offers from Auburn, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma State, Purdue, UCLA, Oregon State and several other programs. https://www.instagram.com/p/DZAi_yUG3hG/?img_index=1While nothing is final until the Spartans receive Johnson's signature during the early signing period in December (or regular signing period in February), Johnson's verbal commitment to Michigan State is considered by many to be a monumental victory on the recruiting trail as things currently stand. MSU's 2027 class now sits at 14 total scholarship pledges as of press time. Johnson is the third offensive line prospect to commit to the Spartans, joining three-star offensive tackle Jack Carlson and three-star interior offensive lineman Grant Adloff.The Spartans also have 2027 commitments from four-star defensive end Ohimai Ozolu, three-star wide receiver Zach Forbish, three-star EDGE Lawrence Kanneh, three-star EDGE/defensive lineman Jack Schuler, three-star cornerback Cordaro Parham, three-star linebacker Henry Sakalas, three-star linebacker Matthew Brady, three-star quarterback Eli Stumpf, three-star safety Ty'ire Clark and three-star running back Savior Owens. Keep in mind, Michigan State also has a preferred walk-on pledge from 2027 wide receiver Brendan Fitzgerald, who is the son of head coach Pat Fitzgerald.
Michigan State continues to strengthen its defensive line depth out of the transfer portal, landing a commitment from Division II transfer EDGE Aidan Boehle following his official visit to East Lansing on June 2 and June 3. Boehle joins MSU's roster for the 2026 season. https://www.instagram.com/p/DZdvaQDy6Gn/?igsh=NmFkeDZ5d3Y3YmV2He arrives after an unconventional collegiate path that has included stops at Winona State (Minnesota) and a brief stint at Harding University (Arkansas) before re-entering the transfer portal this spring.Boehle, a 6-foot-6, 245-pound edge defender from Minnetonka, Minnesota, becomes another developmental addition for the Spartans as they look to reshape their defensive front heading into the upcoming season. As mentioned, the Spartans hosted Boehle for an official visit last week, which was a trip that ultimately proved pivotal in his decision. Michigan State had been tracking him as a late-cycle defensive line option. At Michigan State, Boehle is expected to play the rush end position. He will work under head coach Pat Fitzgerald, defensive coordinator Joe Rossi, defensive line coach Winston DeLattiboudere III, rush ends coach Andrew Bindelglass and the rest of the staff.Boehle will have two years of collegiate eligibility remaining. Unconventional path to East LansingBoehle’s journey to Michigan State has not followed a traditional path. He originally spent three seasons at Winona State, a Division II program in Minnesota, where he developed into a rotational contributor along the defensive front.In 320 career snaps played at Winona State, Boehle recorded 18 tackles, eight tackles for loss, five sacks, 12 quarterback hits, one forced fumble and two fumble recoveries. While the raw numbers were somewhat modest, his production as a pass rusher and disruptive presence behind the line of scrimmage stood out more than the numbers suggested.Following the 2025 campaign, Boehle transferred to Harding University in Arkansas in December. However, he never suited up for the Bisons in a game. After a coaching change where head coach Paul Simmons transitioned to the role of General Manager of Harding Football in January, and defensive coordinator Roddy Mote was promoted to head coach, Boehle re-entered the transfer portal in May. Describing the situation as “unforeseen circumstances," he reopened his recruitment as a redshirt junior with multiple seasons of eligibility remaining.Several schools offered Boehle out of the transfer portal, including multiple Division I Football Championship Subdivision (FCS) teams. However, Michigan State was the only Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) team that Boehle publicly shared had offered him. Ultimately, MSU was able to add him to the 2026 roster. Physical tools stand outAt 6-foot-6 with long arms and a lean frame at 255 pounds, Boehle presents the type of developmental upside Michigan State has prioritized in the portal. He has the physical traits of a versatile defensive front player who could grow into multiple roles within a Big Ten defensive scheme.While still relatively raw as a pass rusher, Boehle flashes explosiveness off the edge and has shown the ability to convert speed into backfield disruption at the Division II level. His 2.5 tackles for loss and two sacks in 2025 reflect that upside, even in a limited sample size.For Michigan State, the appeal is less about immediate production and more about potential. Boehle brings length, athletic upside and, as mentioned, two years of eligibility. Even if he doesn't make an impact right away, the hope is that Boehle will be able to make the adjustment to the Power Four level. Interestingly, Boehle also played wide receiver in high school. He was listed as 200 pounds coming out of high school in 2023. Boehle has added 55 pounds and strength over the past three seasons. What it means for Michigan StateThe addition of Boehle continues Michigan State’s trend of mining the transfer portal for under-the-radar defensive line prospects with upside. The Spartans have been active in identifying players outside the Power Four ranks who can develop into rotational contributors over time.With roster turnover and ongoing competition across the defensive front, Boehle adds depth and flexibility to a position group that remains a priority in this cycle. While he is not expected to be an immediate impact starter, his long-term development will be something to monitor once he arrives in East Lansing.For Boehle, the move represents a major step up in competition and opportunity. From Division II football in Minnesota to a brief stop in the Great American Conference and now the Big Ten, his path has not been typical, but it now leads to one of the most competitive stages in college football.As Michigan State continues to round out its roster for the upcoming 2026 season, Boehle becomes another piece in a reshaped defensive front in East Lansing.
In the first two parts of this series we have taken a look at Michigan State head coach Tom Izzo's accomplishments in the Big Ten and in key March Madness performance measures such as total wins, Sweet 16s, Final Fours, wins as the lower seed, and wins on a two-day prep.The data presented clearly demonstrates Izzo's historical dominance. But as mentioned previously, not all NCAA Tournament paths are created equally. Fortunately, there are more advanced ways to level the playing field by looking at metrics that measure performance compared to expectation.In total, there are five performance-versus-expectation metrics that I tabulate for the NCAA Tournament. Two of these metrics are commonly used by others, two of them I created myself, and one is a simple accounting stat. PASE (performance against seed expectation):PASE is the "original" advanced NCAA Tournament metric. It measures the number of wins for each coach or team relative to the historical total number of wins per tournament for teams with a given seed. For example, No. 1 seeds have historically won 3.34 games per tournament since 1985. In order for a No. 1 seed to overachieve with a positive PASE score, they need to win four games and advance at least to the Final Four.PARIS (performance against round-independent seed):PARIS is a metric that I created that measures almost the same thing as PASE. The difference is that I consider the historical win percentage for each seed in each round separately and not for the tournament as a whole. PAD (performance against exact seed differential):PAD is a variation on PARIS that I created which takes into account the seed of the opponent for each tournament game. For example, playing a No. 15 seed in the second round is quite a bit easier than facing a No. 2 seed. PAD accounts for this difference, while PASE and PARIS do not.PAKE (performance against Kenpom expectation):PAKE is the other commonly-used metric that is similar to my PAD metric. PAKE accounts for the true strength of each opponent in each tournament game, regardless of seed, based on Kenpom efficiencies. However, reliable Kenpom data - and therefore this metric - only goes back in time as far as 2002.Chalk (+/-)This is a simple accounting stat that measures the total number of games won by a coach or team relative to the situation where the higher seeds win all tournament games up to the Final Four rounds. Chalk and PASE give similar information.In order to get a sense of the range and distribution of the PASE metric, Figure 1 gives the current PASE score for all 720 coaches who have appeared in an NCAA Tournament game since 1979 sorted from high to low.Figure 1: PASE metric for all NCAA Tournament coaches from 1979 through 2026The values range from +17.10 down to -8.58. Moreover, note that the highest data point are the far left of the figure sticks up considerably farther than even the second place coach.That data point at the far left belongs to Tom Izzo.Izzo's current PASE value of +17.10 is a full 4.54 points ahead of the coach in second place (Louisville legend Denny Crum) and 5.57 points ahead of Rick Pitino (who has coached at Providence, Kentucky, Louisville, and Saint John's) the active coach with the next highest score.Izzo's current score is not only the top score of 2026. It is also the highest score recorded by any coach at any point in the history of the NCAA Tournament. Duke legend Mike Krzyewski had a PASE of +16.05 following his National Championship in 2001 but retired after the 2022 season with a PASE of +11.63. Crum maxed out in 1998 with a PASE of +14.33. Pitino's PASE has been as high as +13.68 after the 2015 season. John Calipari reached a maximum of +11.49 in 2019 and Roy Williams was at +11.29 after winning a title in 2017. Billy Donovan had a PASE of +10.58 in 2014 before moving on to the NBA.Villanova legend Rollie Massimino has a PASE of +10.76 in 1989 and John Beilein had his PASE as high as +10.87 in 2018. Former Michigan coach Steve Fisher had a PASE of +10.09 in 1994 with a team full of ineligible players. No other coach in history has topped a PASE of +10 at any point in their career.The story is the same for most of the other metrics. Tom Izzo also owns the all-time best score in my PARIS metric (+9.89), PAD metric (+9.86) as well as the Chalk metric (+14). The only other coach in history with a double-digit Chalk score is Massimino (+12). The next highest active coaches are UConn's Danny Hurley and Oregon's Dana Altman with +7.The only metric where Izzo does not currently own first place is the PAKE metric. Izzo's PAKE of +5.83 is currently third place behind Syracuse's Jim Boeheim (+6.79) and Roy Williams (+6.26). The next highest active coach is Hurley at +5.01.But keep in mind that my tabulated PAKE only goes back to 2002. So even when Izzo's national title and first three Final Fours are not considered, he is still in the top three all time for performance relative to Kenpom efficiency.Beyond simply the raw numbers, the metrics can be compared in unique ways. For example, the PARIS and PAD metrics have certain mathematical properties which allow us to extract some additional interesting information. Specifically, the PARIS metric compares performance per round to the historically average performance for every team of the same seed in that round. The PAD metric is very similar, but it references the specific seed of each opponent and is therefore a more accurate measure of the true difficultly of each tournament gameBecause of this difference, when each team's PAD score is subtracted from its PARIS score, the value represents the amount of "luck" that a team or coach has had in the opponents that they have faced relative to average. Positive luck means that coach has drawn an easier than average set of tournament paths. This effect is best shown below in Figure 2.Figure 2: Comparison of NCAA Tournament luck (as measured by the difference between PARIS and PAD) and true NCAA tournament performance relative to expectation (PAD).Figure 2 compares the "luck score" (PAD subtracted from PARIS) to the PAD metric, which is indicative of the "true" performance versus expectation in NCAA Tournament play. Figure 1 includes data from all 720 head coaches who have appeared on the sidelines of at least one NCAA Tournament game. The vast majority of these data points are clustered near the origin. However, several notable coaches appear in the area outside of this middle region. Each coach's position on the graph gives information about the relative impact of "luck" on their tournament performance relative to expectation.The upper right-hand corner of the graph highlights coaches with both positive PAD and luck. In other words, on average, these coaches have been both lucky and good. Most notable in this section of the graph are Krzyzewski, Beilein, Boeheim, UConn's Jim Calhoun, Dusty May and the all-time king of NCAA Tournament luck, former Florida coach Bill Donovan. Donovan's example helps to illustrate the meaning of the luck metric. A No. 15 seed has defeated a No. 2 seed in the first round a total of 11 times in Tournament history. Naturally, this upset will usually favor the remaining teams in that half of the bracket, as the nominally "strong" No. 2 seed has been eliminated. While at Florida, Billy Donovan benefited from this type of upset of a No.2 seed in both the 2012 tournament (as a No. 7 seed) and in the 2013 tournament (as a No. 3 seed).While Donovan certainly enjoyed a lot of tournament success, his performance relative to expectation was certainly padded later in his career due to some fortunate upsets in his part of the bracket. Similarly, Krzyewski, Beilein, and Boeheim have been similarly "lucky" compared to the average NCAA Tournament coach. The lower right-hand corner of the graph is home to coaches who have been successful relative to expectation despite some below-average tournament luck. The notable coaches here are Roy Williams, Maryland's Gary Williams, Sean Miller, Rick Majerus, Chris Beard and Rollie Massimino.Tom Izzo's position in Figure 2 is relatively unique. Not only is his PAD score significantly larger than any other coach in history, Izzo also accomplished accomplished this feat with historically average luck.Figure 2 also identifies the most unlucky coach as all time, Arizona's Lute Olson. He had his share of big wins and terrible losses, but in a total of 73 tournament games, Olson only faced six opponents which were more than one seed line below the "chalk" value for that round. By comparison, Donovan faced 15 opponents more than one seed line below the "chalk" value in just 47 NCAA Tournament games. Dusty May already has three such opponents in just 15 total games.The upper left-hand side of the figure displays coaches who have had below average performance relative to expectation, but who have been a bit lucky with their tournament draws. The notable coaches here are Bob Huggins and Bill Self.Figure 2 also highlights some of the biggest underachievers in tournament history on the far left side of the graph. Virginia's Tony Bennett has the third lowest PAD (-4.22) and second lowest PASE (-8.50) on record, but he was slightly lucky on balance.Rick Barnes (PAD of -4.81), Gene Keady (-4.21), and Jamie Dixon (-3.35) are the other notable coaches who historically bring up the rear in tournament performance relative to expectation.For the final comparison for today, Figure 3 compares the PAKE metric to the PAD metric, as calculated since 2002.Figure 3: Comparison of the PAKE metric to the PAD metric since 2002 for all NCAA Tournament coaches.As expected, these two metrics are closely correlated. Both metrics are attempting to measure the number of actual wins compared to the number of expected tournament wins.PAKE measures expected tournament wins based on the victory probability derived from Kenpom efficiency data (which correlates very strongly to Las Vegas betting lines). The seeds of the teams do not factor in at all. This is likely the most accurate way to measure performance versus expectation, but the data set is limited.PAD measures expected tournament wins based on the historical data correlating win probability to the combinations of seeds playing in each game. In a perfect world - where seeding is an accurate reflection of teams' strength - PAD and PAKE would be perfected correlated.Most of the data points in Figure 3 fall on or near the trendline. What is interesting about Figure 3 are the coaches whose data deviates noticeably from that line. Izzo, for example, has a higher PAD score than his PAKE score. Mark Few and Bo Ryan similarly appear above the trendline in Figure 3, while Boeheim, Roy Williams, and Self all fall below the line.I interpret this deviation as related to the accuracy of the seeding by the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee. If a coach has a lower PAD than PAKE (below the line in Figure 3), that implies that a coach has fewer expected wins than is implied based on the seed combinations. This suggests that a coach, historically, has been given a higher seed than they deserve. Boeheim, Roy Williams, and Self are the notable coaches in this part of the figure.The opposite is also true. If a coach has a higher PAD than PAKE (above the line) that coach's team, on average, has been better than their seeds imply (and/or their opponents have, on average, been worse). In other words, on average, that coach has been historically under-seeded. Coaches Izzo, Few, and Ryan fall into this category. In part this helps explain how Izzo was able to overachieve so frequently. More often than not, his Spartan teams have been given too low of a seed. According to Figure 3, the difference between Izzo's PAD and PAKE is roughly 2.0. However, as Figure 2 shows, Izzo's PAD is well over 2.0 points ahead of the coach with the next highest value. Even if this potential correction is taken into account, Tom Izzo is still the best NCAA Tournament coach of all time, and he isn't done yet.PREVIOUS: PART ONEPREVIOUS: PART TWO
In Part One of this three-part series, we reviewed some of Michigan State head basketball coach Tom Izzo's many records and accolades in the Big Ten. In addition, we counted up and summarized his win totals and accomplishments in each round of the NCAA Tournament.While the raw numbers are impressive, they only tell a part of the story. Not all NCAA Tournament paths are the same. It is significantly easier to advance in the tournament as a high seed and harder as a lower seed.Izzo has shown that he can do both.Another record that he currently holds is the total number of tournament wins as the lower seed (17). The only other coaches in history with more than 10 "seed upset wins" are former Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim (15), Arizona's Lute Olson (11), and Villanova legend Rollie Massimino (11). The active coach with the next highest number of upset wins is Gonzaga's Mark Few with nine.To put this into perspective, Izzo has as many or more upset wins in the NCAA Tournament than several other legendary coaches have total tournament games played as the lower seed. This includes Duke's Mike Krzyewski (12 total games as the underdog out of 132 total games), Roy Williams (15), Rick Pitino (17), John Calipari (17), Bill Self (9), Florida's Billy Donovan (9), North Carolina's Dean Smith (8), just to name a few.Figure 1 below visualizes this performance by plotting the winning percentages for roughly the top 50 NCAA Tournament coaches of all time. This group loosely contains all coaches with at least 20 tournament wins in the modern era, or active coaches with at least 10 wins.The x-axis shows the winning percentage for each coach as the seed favorite. The y-axis shows the winning percentage for each coach as the underdog. The numbers in parentheses give the total number of tournament games each coach has played as either the favorite or the underdog.Figure 1: Winning percentages for the top 56 all-time NCAA tournament coaches divided up by wins as the favorite (x-axis) and as the underdog (y-axis). The numbers in parentheses give the total number of tournament games each coach has played as either the favorite or the underdog.The green square in Figure 1 maps out the area where Izzo has a better win percentage both as the favorite and as the underdog. Only 14 total coaches fall outside of this area.There are only eight total coaches in this group that have a better win percentage as the favorite than Izzo and only four have played more than eight games as the higher seed. Izzo has coached in 52 games as the higher seed.The four coaches with that higher volume are UConn's Boddy Hurley (16-2 as the favorite), Louisville legend Denny Crum (28-4), Utah and St. Louis' Rick Majerus (14-2), and former West Virginia and Michigan coach John Beilein (17-3). These coaches all edge Tom Izzo's 44-8 record and 84.6% win percentage as a favorite.Note that Chris Beard (7-0), Brad Stevens (6-0), Massimino (7-0) are all undefeated as the higher seed, but on fairly low volume. Dusty May's 7-1 record as the favorite is also notable.There are a total of eight coaches in this group with a higher win percentage than Izzo as the underdog. Only three of them have more than 10 games as the lower seed. This list includes former Florida State coach Lennard Hamilton (6-5), former Xavier and Louisville coach Chris Mack (5-4), former Miami coach Jim Laranaga (9-8), former Ohio State coach Thad Matta (5-4), Donovan (6-3), and former Kansas and SMU coach Larry Brown (7-3).May (4-2) and Massimino (11-9) are the only coaches on this list with a better win percentage than Izzo as both the higher and lower seed.Izzo is also know for his skill in preparing his team for the second game of the weekend. His teams have a reputation for strong play after a "two-day prep." Quantitatively, Figure 2 below compares the performance of the same group of coaches as Figure 1. In this case the x-axis shows the win percentage on the first game of the weekend. The y-axis shows the win percentage for the second games where the two-day prep is needed.Figure 2: Winning percentages for the top 56 all-time NCAA tournament coaches divided up by wins on the first day of the weekend (x-axis) and wins on the second day (y-axis) where a two-day prep is needed. The numbers in parentheses give the total number of tournament games each coach has played as in both scenarios.On the first day of the weekend, Izzo's record of 35-17 (67%) is one of the few fairly pedestrian NCAA Tournament stats on his resume. It is good for just 26th place among this group of 56 coaches.But Figure 2 does bolster the idea that he has a special ability to prepare his team on a limited timeline. Only six coaches own a better second day win percentage then Tom Izzo at 26-9 (74%) and only three of those coaches have done it having played more than six games.The only high volume coaches on this list are Larranaga (7-2, 78%), Crum (18-4, 82%), and Krzyewski (44-14, 76%). The other three coaches are Iowa State's T.J. Otzelberger (3-1, 75%), Arizona's Tommy Llyod (5-0, 100%), and May (6-0, 100%). In both Figures 1 and 2, it is important to note that having a reasonable sample size is important. For example, after just his sixth year as a head coach, Tom Izzo was 16-3 (84%) in NCAA Tournament play with a National Title and two additional Final Fours and a Sweet 16 appearance in four tournaments.Over this span, he was 16-1 (94%) as the higher seed and 0-1 as the underdog. Izzo was also 8-3 (73%) on the first day of the weekend and a perfect 8-0 on the second day. With the exception of upset wins, Izzo had an even more impressive position on both figures with these statistics after just his sixth year at the helm in East Lansing.It is even more impressive that he accomplished these feats without the use of the transfer portal or an NIL sugar daddy. But it is also a reminder that the true proficiency of a head coach cannot be judged just on a handful of NCAA Tournament appearances. Technically, former UConn coach Kevin Ollie (7-1, .875) and former Kansas State coach Jerome Tang (3-1, 0.750) have two of the highest NCAA Tournament win percentages in history. Ollie has a National Title and Tang appeared in the Elite Eight. But both coaches were fired from their respective universities and neither can be considered as an elite college basketball coach. One or two NCAA Tournament runs are nice, but consistent NCAA Tournament performance is far more rare and far more special.PREVIOUS: PART ONENEXT: PART THREE (coming soon)
It has been over a month since Tom Izzo and the Michigan State Spartans were eliminated from the NCAA Tournament by the UConn Huskies in the Sweet 16. It will also be approximately six months before next year's team takes to the court again. With the commitment of Anton Bonke on April 22 and the departure of guard Divine Ugochukwu via the transfer portal, it will now likely be a quiet summer in East Lansing on the basketball front.But one thing that Spartan fans can count on is that one of the best coaches in the history of the game will once again be patrolling the sidelines next season in the Breslin Center. As summer beckons, it is a good time to look back and reflect on the amazing career - so far - of Tom Izzo.Today kicks off the first installment of a three-part series on Izzo's many achievements to date.First, we will review Izzo's dominance over the Big Ten Conference, as well as some of his raw statistics and accomplishments in the Big Dance.In part two of this series, we will take a closer look at two NCAA Tournament factors where Izzo especially shines: wins as the lower seed and wins on a two-day prep. Finally, in part three, we will dig into some more advanced NCAA Tournament performance metrics and learn exactly how unique Izzo's accomplishments are relative to expectation and relative to every coach in the modern history of the Big Dance.Big Ten DominanceTom Izzo is currently the winningest coach in the history of the Big Ten Conference. He will likely hold onto this title for the foreseeable future.As of the end of the 2026 season, he currently holds the record for both total wins at a Big Ten school (764) and total Big Ten conference wins (375).Izzo's total win count exceeds second place (Indiana legend Bob Knight, 659 wins) by over 100 wins and the next highest active coach (Matt Painter of Purdue, 501) by over 250 wins. Knight is also currently in second place in all-time Big Ten wins with 353. Painter is sitting at fourth place (251 wins) just behind his predecessor, Gene Keady (265 wins).In 2025, Izzo tied the record for the most regular season Big Ten Titles (11). Knight and Purdue's Ward Lambert (1919-1946) also both have 11 titles.Izzo also owns the record for the most Big Ten Tournament titles at six. Former Ohio State coach Thad Matta is in second place with four titles. Painter and former Wisconsin coach Bo Ryan each have three titles. NCAA Tournament PerformanceWhile Tom Izzo's dominance over Big Ten opponents is remarkable, college basketball fans across the country will always remember Izzo as "Mr. March" for his consistent excellence in the Big Dance.Going forward, note that all NCAA Tournament stats and metrics are from the current modern era of the tournament, which I define as starting in 1979. This is the first year when teams were seeded and it is was the first time the tournament included more than 32 teams. Most fans are aware of Izzo's current record of 28 consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances. Mark Few and Gonzaga are right on the Spartans' heels with 27 consecutive appearances. But the next closest active steak is Purdue with 11, thanks, in part, to the fact that Kansas and Bill Self's 2018 tournament appearance was vacated.But Izzo's March accomplishments go far beyond simple staying power.As of 2026, he has 61 NCAA Tournament wins, which places him in a three-way tie all time with former Syracuse coach Jim Boeheim and John Calipari, who has coaches at UMass, Memphis, Kentucky, and Arkansas. Only Duke legend Mike Krzyewski (101 wins) and North Carolina's Roy Williams (79) have more.Izzo's overall tournament record of 61-27 (0.693) places him clearly in the top 20 all-time in the modern era for coaches with more than two appearances.He has advanced to the Sweet 16 a total of 17 times which equates to 61% of his total tournament appearances. Izzo's 17 appearances is tied with Calipari and only behind Boeheim (19), Williams (19), and Krzyewski (26) in the modern era.Note that, since 1998, Coach K (18) is the only coach with more Sweet 16 appearances than Izzo. Furthermore, there are only eight other programs total that have more than 17 Sweet Sixteen appearances since 1979 (Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, Arizona, Louisville, UCLA, and Syracuse). Izzo has more Sweet 16 appearances than Washington, Minnesota, USC, Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, and Northwestern combined (15) since 1979.He has advanced to the Elite Eight a total of 11 times (39% of appearances). This total is tied with Self for fifth place behind current Saint John's coach Rick Pitino (12), Calipari (12), Williams (13), and Krzyewski (17). Self is the only other coach with at least 11 regional final appearances since 1998. As programs, only Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, Kansas, and UConn have more Elite Eight appearances in the modern era than Izzo. He also has more Elite Eight appearances than half of the Big Ten combined.Izzo has been to the Final Four a total of eight times (29% of all appearances), which trails only Williams (nine) and Krzyewski (13). Only North Carolina, Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky, as programs, have more Final Fours in the modern era than Izzo. No other coach has more than seven Final Fours since 1998. Izzo also has at least twice as many Final Fours as all Big Ten teams in the modern era except UCLA, not counting vacated appearances.UP NEXT: PART TWO
Some initial thoughts on what Sheridan's offense might bring to MSU
The ins and outs of a critical, much needed win for the Spartans over the Eagles in double overtime.
Spartans jump out to 7-0 lead, ride dominant outing from Aidan Donovan into Wednesday matchup with Iowa in Omaha
The Spartans are trying to hold on to the last spot in the Big Ten Tournament in Omaha
The Spartans remain in search of traction as they approach the heart of conference play
Michigan State women's basketball fans finally received its home and away pairings for the 2026-2027 Big Ten conference season. The men's were announced by the league on May 12.The Spartans will once again face an 18-game schedule for the sixth-straight season and eight of the last nine dating back to 2018-2019. The conference implemented a 20-game schedule, the same as the men play each year, for the 2020-2021 season.The annual rivalry against Michigan results in the Spartans-Wolverines matchup being the only opponent MSU will face twice this season, playing both in Ann Arbor and East Lansing. The Spartans will look to reverse their fortunes next season after being swept by the Wolverines this past season. MSU will host Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Penn State, Purdue, Washington, and Wisconsin at the Breslin Center this upcoming season.On the road, the Spartans will take on Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, Northwestern, Ohio State, Rutgers, UCLA, and USC. The complete schedule with game dates and broadcast/streaming information will be announced at a later date.Last season, MSU went 23-9, advancing to the second round of the NCAA Tournament before falling to district site host Oklahoma. The Spartans earned a No. 5 seed, which was its highest seed since the 2015-2016 season. A late season slide in league play prevented the Spartans from hosting the initial weekend after being ranked inside the top-16 to open March. The opportunity to host would have helped increase the chances of making the program's first Sweet 16 appearance since 2009.MSU returns a pair of All-Big Ten honorees in graduate guard Theryn Hallock and redshirt-junior guard Kennedy Blair. The Spartans will look to replace several departed players, including former forward Grace VanSlooten who was drafted No. 39 overall in the WNBA Draft by the Seattle Storm this year (ninth pick of the third round). MSU was one of three Big Ten schools to have players drafted along with UCLA and OSU. VanSlooten was the first-ever Spartan taken by the Storm and seventh Big Ten player overall.
The MSU women's basketball team had a valiant effort against OU, but fell short. Full recap here.
The Spartans adapted, survived, and advanced
What started as a discussion about fiduciary accountability and derivative-style litigation has quickly evolved into something much larger
After a recent article, stakeholders are exploring whether the discussion should move beyond theory
A look at a rarely used option available to concerned Spartan stakeholders
