2017 Coaching Carousel

Status
Not open for further replies.
And as far as what constitutes a "good hire" it is a a bad, actually the wrong argument. Making a change is a totally different argument, but let's not confuse that with what would constitute a "good hire." The next coaching hire is extremely critical.
All hires are critical. I don't think this one is any more or less critical than the Groce hire was. And I don't think it is more or less critical than the one that will take place in 4 years if Whitman makes a mistake or 20 years if he hires a game-change.

I really think we're in a bad place right now. I don't think a couple more years of bad results will put us in any worse of a position. In other words, IMO, we've hit rock-bottom. It's really a matter of how long we stay there.
 
I would not call Lucas or Kipper disappointments.
Being disappointed does not equal disappointments. One refers to the mental state of the poster. The other is an evaluation of a player. They are absolutely not equal.

Furthermore, go look at the numbers people predicted for Kipper. They were absurd. You can find similar predictions for JCL, Jordan, etc., etc.
 
San Francisco
I do not agree with that. The next hire is very critical to the Illini program. Just doing marginally better, is pretty much accepting mediocrity.

Just because a new hire could do better than Groce, it would not make it a good hire. A good hire would be someone who could elevate the program with respect to where the program should be, not where the bar is right now. Someone had posted Kenpom numbers on starting and end points, and you could argue Weber had a much more detrimental effect on the program (considering the drop from starting point). And you could even argue that Groce's ending point this season is not far from his starting point (last year under Weber). Considering the recruiting class (which is not exceptional, but still good), it is a better state than inheriting an empty 2012 class, an empty 2010 class, etc.

You also have to consider duration until next hire. The next hiring cycle will likely not be until 5 years after this hire. Accepting mediocrity on the basis of marginal improvement will plummet the program further into irrelevancy even if that mediocrity may be slightly better.

The expectation and bar should be "a lot better" and towards where the program should be, not where it is right now. The next hire is extremely critical.
:thumb:
 
Interesting read, in the absence of any hot sauce rumors:

http://www.illinoisloyalty.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=17757
Another interesting read is the thread announcing the hiring of JG: http://www.illinoisloyalty.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=17843

Lots of love for Snacks. And on page 2, this gem from an Ohio visitor:
Enjoy your Natonal Championships... Seriously, you have no idea what you guys are getting...


I'm going to go throw up now....Damnit....
Man, these strolls down memory lane are weird in message board format.
 
Well, but that's the thing - those are being conflated by people saying that you don't make a change unless you have a "homerun" hire.
It is a stupid point because no matter the hire, you do not know who you can really get until you actually fire a coach and start negotiating. As I have said in multiple previous posts, if that was that easy, schools with a lot more resources and better network and connections would have avoided embarrassing searches (e.g., UCLA, Oregon, OK State). It is not that we are smarter than everyone, and everyone else is dumb.

As far as hire, you will really know whether you made a "homerun" hire after results come in. Unfortunately, the same would be true for making a hire that would be worse than Groce. But even after results are in, if the next coach does marginally better than Groce and still not well with respect to where the program would be, that would still not be a "good hire." It would further plummet the program into irrelevancy, considering that is the state we have been for the last 12 years. JMO.
 
Austin
Being disappointed does not equal disappointments. One refers to the mental state of the poster. The other is an evaluation of a player. They are absolutely not equal.

Furthermore, go look at the numbers people predicted for Kipper. They were absurd. You can find similar predictions for JCL, Jordan, etc., etc.
My mental state regarding Kipper, Lucas and JCL's freshman year does not qualify as "disappointed." To that point, it appears, at least to me, that incoming TF is better than incoming TJL, yet look how much we NEED TJL on the floor to be successful. Projecting forward, thinking the impact of an incoming player starting from a higher floor might be pretty a big one (especially considering how big the impact of the guy with the lower floor has been), is not an outlandish conclusion.
 
Being disappointed does not equal disappointments. One refers to the mental state of the poster. The other is an evaluation of a player. They are absolutely not equal.

Furthermore, go look at the numbers people predicted for Kipper. They were absurd. You can find similar predictions for JCL, Jordan, etc., etc.
If you measure disappointment as the distance from "absurd" you will always have disappointment. But it makes zero sense in reality, totally irrelevant, and truth is that both Lucas and Kipper are the furthest things in Illini basketball currently from the disappointment state. I do not think it is absurd to believe that Frazier, for example, can really help at PG, our ball movement has been terrible, given the gaps at PG during the Groce era. I have never seen Frazier in person, so I am always conservative in my recruits' statements although I do follow AAU closely. But people who have seen him and I trust tell me he is a really good player.
 
Last edited:
My mental state regarding Kipper, Lucas and JCL's freshman year does not qualify as "disappointed." To that point, it appears, at least to me, that incoming TF is better than incoming TJL, yet look how much we NEED TJL on the floor to be successful. Projecting forward, thinking the impact of an incoming player starting from a higher floor might be pretty a big one (especially considering how big the impact of the guy with the lower floor has been), is not an outlandish conclusion.
Until you realize Jaylon Tate was also ranked higher than TJL as a recruit.
 
All hires are critical. I don't think this one is any more or less critical than the Groce hire was. And I don't think it is more or less critical than the one that will take place in 4 years if Whitman makes a mistake or 20 years if he hires a game-change.

I really think we're in a bad place right now. I don't think a couple more years of bad results will put us in any worse of a position. In other words, IMO, we've hit rock-bottom. It's really a matter of how long we stay there.
Of course it is more critical. The further away you slip in time from where the program should be, the more difficult it becomes to return to that point, the more critical the hiring becomes. You can sell the "return" of the program much easier closer in time, a lot more difficult, if not impossible, the longer you stay irrelevant.

Even Pat Kennedy was able to sell the "return" of DePaul in the late 90's, it is almost impossible right now, even if they hire the next Pat Kennedy. We stay another 5 years irrelevant, even if marginally better, it could kill the program.
 
Last edited:
Read my post. The argument was what constitutes a "good hire."

As far as Weber, he had a far more detrimental effect on the program than Groce considering what he inherited. The reason we ended up in 2012, which is a terrible point, is because of Weber.
It is a stupid point because no matter the hire, you do not know who you can really get until you actually fire a coach and start negotiating. As I have said in multiple previous posts, if that was that easy, schools with a lot more resources and better network and connections would have avoided embarrassing searches (e.g., UCLA, Oregon, OK State). It is not that we are smarter than everyone, and everyone else is dumb.

As far as hire, you will really know whether you made a "homerun" hire after results come in. Unfortunately, the same would be true for making a hire that would be worse than Groce. But even after results are in, if the next coach does marginally better than Groce and still not well with respect to where the program would be, that would still not be a "good hire." It would further plummet the program into irrelevancy, considering that is the state we have been for the last 12 years. JMO.
I understand the logic behind your thinking and I read your post initially, fyi. The point I am making is that retaining Groce is more symbolic of accepting mediocrity than striving for small improvements. You seem to be misconstruing the belief as "any improvement would be better than Groce" with "the goal is any improvement from Groce".

I think the goals have been clearly laid out. We need to be in the tournament annually -- anything short of the NCAAT has you off the map for that year -- and contending for top 3 in the conference. Nobody will argue those points.

Clamoring for any change is because we already know Groce cannot accomplish those things. Why stick with a guy we KNOW can't reach our goals just because we can't hire Archie Miller, Tony Bennett, Billy D, etc? That tier below -- Krystowiak, Cuonzo, etc -- could, they've gotten closer to those goals than Groce has, and so it's more productive to give those guys a shot than to just let Groce waste years.

What's stopping us from looking at the carousel next year after a sub par season, seeing the perceived 'home runs' unavailable to us, and punting for another year again? When does that cycle stop?
 
If you measure disappointment as the distance from "absurd" you will always have disappointment. But it makes zero sense in reality, totally irrelevant, and truth is that both Lucas and Kipper are the furthest things in Illini basketball currently from the disappointment state. I do not think it is absurd that Frazier, for example, can really help at PG, out ball movement has been terrible, given the gaps at PG during the Groce era. I have never seen Frazier in person, so I am always conservative in my recruits statements although I do follow AAU closely. But people who have seen him and I trust tell me he is a really good player.
As far as expectations go with Frazier, I think it's fair to use TJL as a benchmark -- Lucas being a true freshman PG ranked in the top 100-150 out of high school is apples to apples. Frazier is a better scorer, better shooter, better athlete. TJL is likely the better distributor but Frazier is no slouch. I'm allowing myself to be excited in this case.
 
And is he a ya or a nay?
As is the case with every candidate discussed, hit or miss :thumb: Some are worried about the length of his HC experience, following Stevens' build, etc. Some like his resume.

The big thing are his ties to Groce, which leads a lot of us to believe he wouldn't come here if offered.
 
Indianapolis
As is the case with every candidate discussed, hit or miss :thumb: Some are worried about the length of his HC experience, following Stevens' build, etc. Some like his resume.

The big thing are his ties to Groce, which leads a lot of us to believe he wouldn't come here if offered.
I personally have a gut feeling he ends up at NC State.
 
OFL Supplier, BU's Brylcreem
Virginia
These comments make no sense. What is keeping Groce then? Is that not "rinse and repeat" and "not ideal?"
They do make sense. I'd rather keep Groce and take an additional year to line up the coach we think can carry us forward, than hire in plan D or E and be right back where we are now in 3 years. How does THAT make sense?
 
Hiring someone just because you don't want to see him at a school you play against once a year is bad policy.
The problem with Cuonzo to Mizzou isn't the Bragging Rights game. The reason many posters don't want to see him go to Mizzou is the fear that he will start pulling the best players out of the Metro East left and right, which is an area that we've worked hard to make recruiting progress in, and really need continued success there. The best player on our team and half of our next recruiting class all came out of that area. The talent coming out of Peoria and the rest of downstate has been inconsistent for the last couple of years, and we're not pulling the best players out of Chicago.

Look at the roster for next year and you've got Aaron Jordan and DJ Williams coming out of the Chicago area, and that's it. I don't see AJ as a contributor, and DJW has one foot out the door. The Metro East is a very important region for our success right now, unless the next coach can come in and lock down Chicago, which is extremely unlikely.
 
Indianapolis
They do make sense. I'd rather keep Groce and take an additional year to line up the coach we think can carry us forward, than hire in plan D or E and be right back where we are now in 3 years. How does THAT make sense?
Because that's not how coaching searches work. They doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Another year forward is another year our program looks a little more tarnished. It's another year Groce struggles to recruit because everyone knows he is about to be cut loose. It's a year closer to massive holes in our recruiting classes because of it. All of that combines to make the job even less desirable when the coaching search happens.

And again, there are good options out there RIGHT NOW. Josh is going to go get one.
 
St. Louis, MO
The problem with Cuonzo to Mizzou isn't the Bragging Rights game. The reason many posters don't want to see him go to Mizzou is the fear that he will start pulling the best players out of the Metro East left and right, which is an area that we've worked hard to make recruiting progress in, and really need continued success there.
The last player to chose between Miznoz and Illinois was...Aaron Cosby? And before that...

These hypothetical recruiting battles are nice to talk about, but don't really carry much weight. We are just as likely to be battling SLU, Michigan State, Florida etc for kids as we are Miznoz.

If CM is good enough to be the coach at Illinois, then hire him. But don't do it just to keep your recruiting grounds less threatened. We haven't made the tournament in 4 years. All of our recruiting ground is threatened.
 
Last edited:
Then you wait another year - or you decide we're too much of a dumpster fire to have high expectations and the lower your expectations and then go plan D or E. I don't think settling is the right move. Obviously if you have an idea you can get plan A, B (or maybe C depending on the gap), then you move.

How does getting another mediocre coach solve this problem? If we're shooting for 'can fog up a mirror', then yes. I think we're shooting for something much higher.
I don't know why anyone thinks we're going to get a mediocre coach just because it's not Brad Stevens or Billy Donovan. And by using the word "another" you're assuming we end up with a Groce clone. That's not happening. My expectations are sky high. Anyway, we're not waiting another year to possibly add one or two names to the candidate list. Who exactly are you waiting for in 2018?
 
I do not agree with that. The next hire is very critical to the Illini program. Just doing marginally better, is pretty much accepting mediocrity.

Just because a new hire could do better than Groce, it would not make it a good hire. A good hire would be someone who could elevate the program with respect to where the program should be, not where the bar is right now. Someone had posted Kenpom numbers on starting and end points, and you could argue Weber had a much more detrimental effect on the program (considering the drop from starting point). And you could even argue that Groce's ending point this season is not far from his starting point (last year under Weber). Considering the recruiting class (which is not exceptional, but still good), it is a better state than inheriting an empty 2012 class, an empty 2010 class, etc.

You also have to consider duration until next hire. The next hiring cycle will likely not be until 5 years after this hire. Accepting mediocrity on the basis of marginal improvement will plummet the program further into irrelevancy even if that mediocrity may be slightly better.

The expectation and bar should be "a lot better" and towards where the program should be, not where it is right now. The next hire is extremely critical.
+1
 
Status
Not open for further replies.