Couch: Izzo deserves criticism for Syracuse loss - but chill with the doomsday perspective

Michigan State fans are right to be frustrated. Sunday’s NCAA tournament loss to Syracuse was the epitome of frustration. 

It ended a season for a team that, despite 30 wins and an outright Big Ten championship, could be frustrating to watch. And, for the third year in a row, the Spartans are done playing before the Sweet 16.

Reasonable people are questioning Tom Izzo. As are unreasonable people. Twitter and my email in-box are full of both.

That’s fair. He’s paid handsomely to win big. Losing to an 11 seed in the second round doesn’t qualify. Not with this team.

And then there’s that other thing — the school down the road is still playing and playing well. And when Michigan outperforms MSU, that does all sorts of things to people’s emotions and their ability to think rationally.

I, too, think Izzo probably should have tried Miles Bridges at power forward against Syracuse’s zone. I also don’t think that was the difference. If you believe Bridges sees the court like Ben Carter, you don’t really know Bridges’ game. Letting Jaren Jackson Jr. figure it out a little longer there would have been my play. But MSU mostly lost because it had a horrible shooting day. If the Spartans had gone 9-for-37 from long range instead of 8-for-37 or made one of their last 14 shots, they survive. 

That’s the crapshoot of this one-and-done tournament. Bad nights aren’t forgiven. Virginia, Xavier, North Carolina and Cincinnati are feeling the same cruel hand of the basketball gods.

The doubts about Izzo today seem similar to those from four years ago. The questions are different. Then, he was missing out on one heralded recruit after another. Now, with his most heralded team, he’s being outfoxed.

Izzo answered the 2014 doubters by coaching a 7 seed to the Final Four in 2015 and then landing Miles Bridges, Cassius Winston, Jaren Jackson, etc. 

So, enter the doubting zone with caution.

Most of the criticism I’ve seen and heard involves the idea that, in recent years, his ability to get the most out of players and teams has dipped.

So, let’s look at recent years. Let’s go with the post-Draymond Green era, the last six seasons.

In those seasons, the Spartans are 162-56, a winning percentage of .743, having won at least 27 games five times. They’re 76-32 in Big Ten play, averaging to win 12.7 conference games a year. They’ve won one Big Ten championship and two Big Ten tournament titles. In the NCAA tournament, they’ve been to a Sweet 16, Elite Eight, Final Four, lost in the first round once and second round twice, in that order.

Let that marinate versus your 1998 expectations. If your expectations have changed, you’re judging Izzo against Izzo. Or maybe Izzo against Mike Krzyzewski or Jim Boeheim, coaches you can only judge Izzo against because he's put MSU in the stratosphere of their programs.

MORE:  Couch: Michigan State, it turns out, never became the team with thought it might be

MORE:  Future unclear for three Spartans; Izzo says he'll return

If you want more, you won’t find it in the Big Ten. Not at Michigan or Wisconsin or Indiana or anywhere. Over the last six years — the best half-dozen years of basketball by the Wolverines since the Fab Five and by the Badgers ever — MSU remains the preeminent program in the Big Ten.

John Beilein at Michigan is 154-65 during that span (a win percentage of .692), averaging 11.3 Big Ten wins and, like MSU, has one Big Ten title and two Big Ten tournament titles. The Wolverines have been the NCAA tournament runners-up, reached the Elite Eight, missed the postseason altogether, lost in the first round and now have reached the Sweet 16 in each of the last two years. That’s 12 NCAA tournament wins to MSU’s 11 and U-M is still going.

If that slight edge in one category is enough for you to lose faith, to think your program is slipping, let me introduce you to Iowa and Illinois and even Wisconsin and Indiana. And good luck in the post-Izzo era.

Winning big in basketball at MSU isn’t a birthright. In Jud Heathcote’s final six seasons — his best six seasons — MSU reached the Sweet 16 once, lost in the second round of the NCAA tournament three times, the first round once and played in one NIT. That may be a good six seasons at MSU again one day.

Izzo has made MSU relevant nationally. Michigan was already.

Beilein is a brilliant offensive mind. His teams usually improve considerably, this year as much as any. He’s got a great mix of drivers and shooters — better overall talent than most realized, which evolved into a better overall team than any in the Big Ten and a problematic matchup for MSU.

Meanwhile, Izzo’s most gifted collection of talent wasn’t always such a great mix on the court. It lacked a fiery leader, veterans in key roles and guards who could get to the basket and finish there. MSU sometimes had too many big guys. Izzo sometimes played too many of them. Perhaps Bridges should have been treated as one of them more often.

Again, those are all legit criticisms. Izzo might be a Hall of Fame coach, but, like most of them, he’s stubborn. No one sticks by a lineup with 1 1/2 scoring options like Izzo. This wasn’t his best coaching job. But, as we learned by season’s end Sunday, this team lacked skill in certain critical areas. At some point — and I think we all knew it — that was likely to bite this group.

MSU fans have a rotten week ahead of them. If Michigan wins a couple more times, maybe two weeks. Maybe it’s a long offseason. That’s a deep-seated rivalry issue. I can’t help you there.

But the program, from a basketball perspective, is fine. No other fan base in the country has it better when it comes to the combination of football and basketball. Not Alabama or Oklahoma or Michigan. A big chunk of that remains Izzo’s basketball program, which isn’t on the decline.

Contact Graham Couch at gcouch@lsj.com. Follow him on Twitter @Graham_Couch.