Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread (October 2018)

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1,376      
I don't even see how this is possible though? We have a Huggins/Martin protege as HC, a guy who used to be in the thick of things with Calipari and another guy who coached Mac Irvin Fire. By all indicators, this should be a staff that knows how to push boundaries, gray areas to get recruits and work 'the game' as well as anyone.

If Antigua can't get it done for recruiting, I'm just at a loss. He knows the recruiting game as well as anyone.
 
#1,377      

sacraig

The desert
I don't even see how this is possible though? We have a Huggins/Martin protege as HC, a guy who used to be in the thick of things with Calipari and another guy who coached Mac Irvin Fire. By all indicators, this should be a staff that knows how to push boundaries, gray areas to get recruits and work 'the game' as well as anyone.

This right here is why I don't think the popular narrative here about our lack of recruiting success is correct. Our staff have histories of success on and off the court (though the level of each varies by individual), so combined they should be able to run a solid program. We haven't closed on our targets lately, buy I don't but the idea that that is because the staff doesn't know how. I also don't buy the idea that BU yells too much or rides his guys too hard. Too many other successful coaches do the same. Of course, I don't know what is the answer, but I am pretty sure that isn't the answer. It doesn't pass the test of Occam's razor because it involves staff suddenly all forgetting skills that they used to have.

The fact that our staff, at least on the recruiting front, seems to be operating on a level that is less than the sum of its parts implies to me that some other factor is the cause. Maybe the staff haven't internally meshed well and it shows to the recruits? Maybe it really is just that hard to sell recruits on a program that has been in the dumps for 10+ years? Maybe the staff is less willing to operate in a gray area than previously until the FBI investigation blows over? I don't know.
 
#1,378      
This right here is why I don't think the popular narrative here about our lack of recruiting success is correct. Our staff have histories of success on and off the court (though the level of each varies by individual), so combined they should be able to run a solid program. We haven't closed on our targets lately, buy I don't but the idea that that is because the staff doesn't know how. I also don't buy the idea that BU yells too much or rides his guys too hard. Too many other successful coaches do the same. Of course, I don't know what is the answer, but I am pretty sure that isn't the answer. It doesn't pass the test of Occam's razor because it involves staff suddenly all forgetting skills that they used to have.

The fact that our staff, at least on the recruiting front, seems to be operating on a level that is less than the sum of its parts implies to me that some other factor is the cause. Maybe the staff haven't internally meshed well and it shows to the recruits? Maybe it really is just that hard to sell recruits on a program that has been in the dumps for 10+ years? Maybe the staff is less willing to operate in a gray area than previously until the FBI investigation blows over? I don't know.

I agree with this. There's also the possibility that luck has just not worked out for us over these two years. However unlikely it is that that is the main factor, it is still a possibility.

Of course, this doesn't mean that things will necessarily improve. But I really hope they do, and soon.
 
#1,379      

sacraig

The desert
How do y'all think we were attracting top 100 recruits in the past? How do y'all think every school has done it for the past 50 year? Every single one.

The argument I hear of winning cures all is false. Kansas, Duke, Kentucky are the teams you'd think wouldn't need to play dirty for teams, but what are we seeing with this investigation? Kansas paid De Sousa and Preston. Bill Self was aware of it. Lousiville paid Bowen and was aware of it. Duke paid Bagley. Winning doesn't matter. The only way to get top recruits is to pay them some sort of extra benefit. Obviously, there are exceptions to this rule, but out of the Top 100 maybe 90% are paid something.

Every single coach knows how this works. Every single AD knows. All the boosters know. The people close to "the scene" know. The FBI knows. And now we're starting to know as well.

The only thing winning has done for these programs is its allowed their cheating to proliferate because everyone also knows the NCAA is a joke. It isn't respected by any of these institutions as an authority. Everyone in the NCAA knows as well as everyone else how much cheating is taking place. The power 5 conferences are bigger than the NCAA. The NCAA is permitted to serve two purposes and those are:
1. grant validity to these institutions success by performing their investigations and concluding them without significant penalty
2. preserve amateur status for the athletes

Take a look at the list of NCAABB champions. You need to go back to 1963 to find a team that *might* be clean who won it all. Every single team on that list has been accused of well documented impropriety. The NCAA has done their job of not punishing the winning and revenue teams, and in maintaining the facade that these are amateur athletes.

Imagine the financial consequences if the payments and benefits to players was out in the open. What would change? The players will continue getting paid like they always have. The difference will be that without amateurism the institutions won't be able to exploit these players as they have. They'll need to pay them for commercial appearances, and to use their likeness. The players will be able to organize and have collective bargaining powers. The NCAAs purpose isn't to prevent teams from cheating, its to preserve their monopoly.

From a revenue perspective the NCAA umbrella is larger than the pro teams, and in some cases combined. For example, the NCAA has retail sales that surpass the NFL and NBA combined. Multiple networks and media platforms exist under the umbrella. What is the difference between pro sports leagues and the NCAA? Nothing, other than this idea of amateurism, which is a false notion.

Succeeding in the NCAA is no different than succeeding in a pro league, and you can't expect to win when you're being outspent by your opponents.

I think you are painting with too broad a brush. In my opinion, there are basically two classes of team out there. For teams like Duke and UK and Kansas, winning is just a given, so it's not really part of the puzzle. It's really just a matter of how much winning, particularly when they play against each other. That winning means they attract recruit interest by default, but it also means that it increases the interest that shoe and apparel companies have in them, because winning means greater exposure, which means better advertising for those companies. So since those companies now have a financial interest in the chosen few teams succeeding, they've been more apt to place their thumbs on the recruiting scales. So being a blue blood almost certainly necessitates being involved in that world.

Then you have the lower-tiered teams. These are teams like us, who have some history of success but are certainly not blue bloods. These teams need to keep winning to maintain their health. Even if these teams are playing to at least some degree in the black area, they don't have the level of resources and the level of ingrained interest of the shoe companies to make it into a true big dollar business (for the most part). If you aren't in that upper echelon and don't have that benefit, so while you may still be playing in some not-entirely-legal areas, there are plenty of other winning teams that are willing to play that game, too.

So, in short, even if every team really is in that pay-to-play game, unless you are a blue blood, you still have to win to attract talent. One example: you literally couldn't pay me go to to Rutgers and get walloped every game.
 
#1,380      

skyIdub

Winged Warrior
How do y'all think we were attracting top 100 recruits in the past? How do y'all think every school has done it for the past 50 year? Every single one.

The argument I hear of winning cures all is false. Kansas, Duke, Kentucky are the teams you'd think wouldn't need to play dirty for teams, but what are we seeing with this investigation? Kansas paid De Sousa and Preston. Bill Self was aware of it. Lousiville paid Bowen and was aware of it. Duke paid Bagley. Winning doesn't matter. The only way to get top recruits is to pay them some sort of extra benefit. Obviously, there are exceptions to this rule, but out of the Top 100 maybe 90% are paid something.

Every single coach knows how this works. Every single AD knows. All the boosters know. The people close to "the scene" know. The FBI knows. And now we're starting to know as well.

The only thing winning has done for these programs is its allowed their cheating to proliferate because everyone also knows the NCAA is a joke. It isn't respected by any of these institutions as an authority. Everyone in the NCAA knows as well as everyone else how much cheating is taking place. The power 5 conferences are bigger than the NCAA. The NCAA is permitted to serve two purposes and those are:
1. grant validity to these institutions success by performing their investigations and concluding them without significant penalty
2. preserve amateur status for the athletes

Take a look at the list of NCAABB champions. You need to go back to 1963 to find a team that *might* be clean who won it all. Every single team on that list has been accused of well documented impropriety. The NCAA has done their job of not punishing the winning and revenue teams, and in maintaining the facade that these are amateur athletes.

Imagine the financial consequences if the payments and benefits to players was out in the open. What would change? The players will continue getting paid like they always have. The difference will be that without amateurism the institutions won't be able to exploit these players as they have. They'll need to pay them for commercial appearances, and to use their likeness. The players will be able to organize and have collective bargaining powers. The NCAAs purpose isn't to prevent teams from cheating, its to preserve their monopoly.

From a revenue perspective the NCAA umbrella is larger than the pro teams, and in some cases combined. For example, the NCAA has retail sales that surpass the NFL and NBA combined. Multiple networks and media platforms exist under the umbrella. What is the difference between pro sports leagues and the NCAA? Nothing, other than this idea of amateurism, which is a false notion.

Succeeding in the NCAA is no different than succeeding in a pro league, and you can't expect to win when you're being outspent by your opponents.

giphy.gif
 
#1,384      
Brad Underwood does not (and did not) have a reputation as a recruiter. Even Joe Henricksen talked about that when he was hired. Yet, he made some very good choices IMO with the hiring of Chin and Orlando Antigua. The fact that we have not been doing better in recruiting despite two assistants with strong recruiting reputations (especially Antigua) and strong AAU ties, is a serious concern.
I know this has been covered, but I wonder about Underwood's ability to connect well with recruits. It's one thing to have assistants to get you to the door step and another to get in the door. As much as I have always disliked Calipari, he has the ability to win people over. Bill self and Roy Williams may have the benefit of having great facilities , but their personalities carry the day.
 
#1,385      

ILL in IA

Iowa City
I know this has been covered, but I wonder about Underwood's ability to connect well with recruits. It's one thing to have assistants to get you to the door step and another to get in the door. As much as I have always disliked Calipari, he has the ability to win people over. Bill self and Roy Williams may have the benefit of having great facilities , but their personalities carry the day.
I would ask how Huggy connects, but he gets the benefit of the doubt with the drunk uncle who just doesn't care. That tracksuit goes a long way.
 
#1,387      
I know this has been covered, but I wonder about Underwood's ability to connect well with recruits. It's one thing to have assistants to get you to the door step and another to get in the door. As much as I have always disliked Calipari, he has the ability to win people over. Bill self and Roy Williams may have the benefit of having great facilities , but their personalities carry the day.

Just saw Underwood at the Independent Sport Club's annual Smoker here in Peoria with Underwood and Bradley's coach, Wardle. Everyone I spoke to afterwards was impressed by Underwood personality. I don't see that as the issue. I think the talk of his yelling is way. way overblown as well.
 
#1,388      
Pretty misleading by saying that punches were thrown. It was a swing that didn't connect. This happens more often then you'd think in high school and college..
I played 4 years of college football and am well aware of the things that go on at practice. It is primarily on Kipper and it is very disappointing that his leadership style is punching a freshman (or attempting to) while frustrated in practice.
 
#1,389      
Just saw Underwood at the Independent Sport Club's annual Smoker here in Peoria with Underwood and Bradley's coach, Wardle. Everyone I spoke to afterwards was impressed by Underwood personality. I don't see that as the issue. I think the talk of his yelling is way. way overblown as well.


Not even remotely close enough to compare. Independent Sport Club members vs teenagers. It’s not even sports club it’s sport club. Different world.
 
#1,390      
Not even remotely close enough to compare. Independent Sport Club members vs teenagers. It’s not even sports club it’s sport club. Different world.

Absolutely. Furthermore, much has been made of yelling and toughness but ability to connect extends WAY beyond that. There are many tough coaches who have a tremendous ability to connect, others do not.
 
#1,393      

TownieMatt

CU Expat
Chicago
I don't think Chris Payton is good enough. Nothing wrong with continuing to evaluate him, but he's not a guy that moves this program to the next level.
 
#1,397      
Doesn't seem like there's been much noise since Timme visited. I'm not sure if that's a byproduct of his recruitment being quiet throughout or if it wasn't very memorable for him. Also, if Payton is who we land on for our 4, I'll be incredibly disappointed.
 
Last edited:
#1,400      
Just saw Underwood at the Independent Sport Club's annual Smoker here in Peoria with Underwood and Bradley's coach, Wardle. Everyone I spoke to afterwards was impressed by Underwood personality. I don't see that as the issue. I think the talk of his yelling is way. way overblown as well.

Pretty sure that was the same group that gave John Groce a standing ovation in 2012.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.