Illini Basketball 2018-2019

Status
Not open for further replies.
History for Illinois and and pretty much every team tells us that there's a pretty wide range of possibilities for our results this year. I think the bell curve for teams like us is pretty flat, as well. Every year there's a number of teams that surprise and every year there are teams that disappoint. Pessimists want to call themselves "realists" when in reality they just like to always select on the left side of the bell. Selecting in the middle doesn't make you a realist. It just means your valuing different parts of the evaluation differently.
Not to make this into a stats discussion, but assuming the mean is expectations by national analysts/coaches/B1G pre-season predictions, I would say that most posters do not select the left side of the curve. I do not think that many are predicting we will do worse than expected. I personally believe we have a strong chance to be better but that is because the expectations are really low, yet we set the bar ourselves so low. Who exactly is expecting lower than were BIG pre-season expectations? Definitely just very few (if any).

The key for the program is not playing better on the right side of the mean/expectation when the expectations are set so low, because we have been (i.e., the collective program) responsible for setting those expectations. Also, it is not just hitting the right chemistry one year, certainly we kind of did that in 2012-13 and 2008-09 under 2 different coaches. The key is consistency, and that consistency is IMO totally unrealistic without strong recruiting, which we know currently is not going well.

Groce overachieved in his first year (2012-13) but overall tenure was pretty much an NIT/bubble team, and we all thought that was not acceptable. It is not as unrealistic as many present to expect taking an NIT team/bubble program and making it a consistent NCAA tournament program. It should not take 3+ years to reach at least the previous level (NIT/bubble).
 
I agree with Obelix that bringing up players that clearly do not correspond to guys on our roster isn't helpful or informative.

But your overall point is exactly accurate which is that we need to see them play to make a judgement.

Lots of people want to borrow trouble. To some it's a defense mechanism I think to imagine the worst so you're pleasantly surprised over everything. (Wow, did you see Georgi! Two rebounds plus a bucket and drawn foul!)

History for Illinois and and pretty much every team tells us that there's a pretty wide range of possibilities for our results this year. I think the bell curve for teams like us is pretty flat, as well. Every year there's a number of teams that surprise and every year there are teams that disappoint. Pessimists want to call themselves "realists" when in reality they just like to always select on the left side of the bell. Selecting in the middle doesn't make you a realist. It just means your valuing different parts of the evaluation differently.

I tend to put coaching in a higher priority place than some so with this coach I believe to be good, my prediction for the season will tend to be on the right side of the bell.

Anyway, our first bad call can't come soon enough to give us something else to talk about.
Understood, and the point was not to compare but give examples. Those examples we can all agree on turned out to be far greater than most predicted or ever saw them becoming. Every team in the NBA who could have taken Stephen Curry is kicking themselves now right... Good old hind site.... but I agree that we need to wait and see.... we have some awesomely talented young men who are representing this University and WANT to be here. That deserves our support and of course we're going to have constructive criticism... but just as you said... the pendulum can swing both ways.... as the saying goes... "every dog has its day" and the ILL-INI shall too... Yessir
 
Understood, and the point was not to compare but give examples. Those examples we can all agree on turned out to be far greater than most predicted or ever saw them becoming. Every team in the NBA who could have taken Stephen Curry is kicking themselves now right... Good old hind site.... but I agree that we need to wait and see.... we have some awesomely talented young men who are representing this University and WANT to be here. That deserves our support and of course we're going to have constructive criticism... but just as you said... the pendulum can swing both ways.... as the saying goes... "every dog has its day" and the ILL-INI shall too... Yessir
What do these examples have to do with our program though? Nothing. The chances that we become the Golden State Warriors of college basketball or that someone becomes Michael Jordan, or Flyin' Illini, etc. are as low as winning the lottery (may be a little better but definitely not better than 0.0001). It is not that your chances of winning the lottery got any better because someone else won the lottery in the past.

Saying that every NBA team would have liked to have picked Steph Curry is the same as saying I would have liked to have picked those winning numbers in the last Megamillions drawing. The problem is picking them ahead of time, because you can fill all 13 scholarships with lower ranked players with the hope that 1 of them becomes Steph Curry or Michael Jordan and your chances would not go up that much.
 
Michael Jordan got cut from a basketball team in high school.

One of the greatest myths out there... just not true.... he did not make the varsity as a sophomore (which was pretty typical at his school - one sophomore --tall -- did make it). He play junior varsity as a sophomore and varsity as a junior and senior.
 
Likes: goillini30
Michael Jordan got cut from a basketball team in high school.

One of the greatest myths out there... just not true.... he did not make the varsity as a sophomore (which was pretty typical at his school - one sophomore --tall -- did make it). He play junior varsity as a sophomore and varsity as a junior and senior.
And MJ put this kid on blast at his HOF speech. Just one of the things that mad MJ great. The ability to create enemies or create adversity in his head to drive himself to greatness every day.
 
North Bethesda, Maryland
Only if Giorgi and Samba don't both get two fouls in the first ten minutes of a game (something that is not out of the realm of possibilities). They then have to dial it back or Kipper takes the 5. Until we have a healthy De LaRosa, there is reason to have doubts. Perhaps we get a performance like Loyola got from their big guy last year who was a freshman IIRC, but there is reason to be skeptical. We shall see how well OA can coach them up.
I meant to add De LaRosa to that, but it’s a good point anyway, seeing that we don’t know his timeline.
 
And MJ put this kid on blast at his HOF speech. Just one of the things that mad MJ great. The ability to create enemies or create adversity in his head to drive himself to greatness every day.
IIRC, It was really the coach that he targeted his criticism on in the HOF speech. The player chosen was/is his friend.
 
Last edited:
Rumor has it that DeLarosa is going to Hawaii and could see some action.:thumb:
I really hope not. Even if he is completely cleared for Maui I think the staff should hold back on playing him until December. I would rather have him December to February vs. have him for a few games and see another injury occur (Thorne).

Sidenote: I realize injuries can happen at any time no matter how longer you rehabilitate or recover. BUT I really hope our staff plays it safe with such a key player.
 
What do these examples have to do with our program though? Nothing. The chances that we become the Golden State Warriors of college basketball or that someone becomes Michael Jordan, or Flyin' Illini, etc. are as low as winning the lottery (may be a little better but definitely not better than 0.0001). It is not that your chances of winning the lottery got any better because someone else won the lottery in the past.

Saying that every NBA team would have liked to have picked Steph Curry is the same as saying I would have liked to have picked those winning numbers in the last Megamillions drawing. The problem is picking them ahead of time, because you can fill all 13 scholarships with lower ranked players with the hope that 1 of them becomes Steph Curry or Michael Jordan and your chances would not go up that much.
What these examples have to do with our program is that you may be looking foolish for predicting they will not be successful before you give them the chance to prove you either wrong or right... And the odds of finding a kid that over achieved predictions are a lot higher than you winning the lottery. It's just like the New England Patriots... (okay I like to make comparisons) they take no names and make them household names. An eye for talent in your system can make the difference.
 
Likes: Obelix
What these examples have to do with our program is that you may be looking foolish for predicting they will not be successful before you give them the chance to prove you either wrong or right... And the odds of finding a kid that over achieved predictions are a lot higher than you winning the lottery. It's just like the New England Patriots... (okay I like to make comparisons) they take no names and make them household names. An eye for talent in your system can make the difference.
As I mentioned, the chances that we become the Golden State Warriors of college basketball or that someone becomes Michael Jordan, or Flyin' Illini, etc. may be a little better than winning the lottery but definitely not better than 0.0001 given current roster. What do you think the odds are? Michael Jordan? Come on? You think there is more than 1% chance for anyone on the current roster? You are making references and comparisons (your own words) to some of the most successful teams and players in pro sports.

Not sure who has said that lower ranked players do not have a chance to be good, certainly not me. But the chances are definitely not good. Now Michael Jordan and Steph Curry and the examples you gave? Given that there are hundreds of lower ranked players every year, and these players come around once every decade (if not more --- Michael Jordan is the best ever) the chances are not good for anyone, let alone a lower ranked player. Per my original response, Michael Jordan was a very highly ranked player, a McD AA who has averaged a triple double. By senior year he was no secret anymore.
 
As I mentioned, the chances that we become the Golden State Warriors of college basketball or that someone becomes Michael Jordan, or Flyin' Illini, etc. may be a little better than winning the lottery but definitely not better than 0.0001 given current roster. What do you think the odds are? Michael Jordan? Come on? You think there is more than 1% chance for anyone on the current roster? You are making references and comparisons (your own words) to some of the most successful teams and players in pro sports.

Not sure who has said that lower ranked players do not have a chance to be good, certainly not me. But the chances are definitely not good. Now Michael Jordan and Steph Curry and the examples you gave? Given that there are hundreds of lower ranked players every year, and these players come around once every decade (if not more --- Michael Jordan is the best ever) the chances are not good for anyone, let alone a lower ranked player. Per my original response, Michael Jordan was a very highly ranked player, a McD AA who has averaged a triple double. By senior year he was no secret anymore.
I agree that the two superstars named as examples are rare to become that elite of players however being good enough to compete on a high level is not rare from under rated players which is my point. If your talent can be overlooked for any number of reasons to devalue your ability to impact a team or play on a team that is foolish to me. You may not have stated that personally but it is a constant on this thread as I've looked through the posts. People will always worry about this and that, but I again say wait and see. Take the football teams we've had here recently... not much talent according to a lot of analyst on the rosters at Illinois, yet the same players tend to go to the NFL and play well on a professional level. And that's consistently....
 
Likes: Obelix
Take the football teams we've had here recently... not much talent according to a lot of analyst on the rosters at Illinois, yet the same players tend to go to the NFL and play well on a professional level. And that's consistently....
I do not think this is as prevalent as you make it sound, we are certainly not a factory of lower ranked NFL players, but even in the cases where that was true, it just proves that even if one (or few) of the lower ranked players succeed, it still may not result in a successful team because of the "overall" talent level.

I know you say that you do not claim I have stated that personally (and that is true, I have not) but I still do not believe that there are many posters who have stated that lower ranked players can't succeed. Just that the chances they do are statistically lower, and the chances that you have consistent success with that strategy are lower.

As I have said many times, it is not about hitting the chances or chemistry in one season here and there. You can make the case that actually happened in 2012-13 (Groce) and 2008-09 (Weber). But that is not the recipe for consistent success, and the last 12 years prove that. Good discussion.
 
Likes: Fr8trn16
It's nonsense, it just fits a certain narrative. People were going gaga over Groce's motivational speech after the Miami game, how exceptional it was, what a breath of fresh air, his ability to connect and motivate players. At the end, BU will be measured by results as any other coach.
Culture is not nonsense. Programs develop it because the individuals influence one another, and there are consequences to going outside the norms. With the amount of change year-to-year in college basketball, it's easier to change than in larger, more stable organizations, but it's most definitely there, and not some nonsense 'narrative'.
 
And MJ put this kid on blast at his HOF speech. Just one of the things that mad MJ great. The ability to create enemies or create adversity in his head to drive himself to greatness every day.
I thought MJs speech was small of him in many ways. Didn't need to invite HS teammate just to call him out. Didn't need to talk about his competiveness to draw criticism of others. Could of spent more time praising his family and teammates. His success as a player is without question. Best part was his explaining why David Thompson presented him.
 
you feel me, dog?
Elmhurst
I thought MJs speech was small of him in many ways. Didn't need to invite HS teammate just to call him out. Didn't need to talk about his competiveness to draw criticism of others. Could of spent more time praising his family and teammates. His success as a player is without question. Best part was his explaining why David Thompson presented him.
It was. But then again, that's who he is. He created massive chips on his shoulder to stoke his hyper-competitiveness.
 
I do not think this is as prevalent as you make it sound, we are certainly not a factory of lower ranked NFL players, but even in the cases where that was true, it just proves that even if one (or few) of the lower ranked players succeed, it still may not result in a successful team because of the "overall" talent level.

I know you say that you do not claim I have stated that personally (and that is true, I have not) but I still do not believe that there are many posters who have stated that lower ranked players can't succeed. Just that the chances they do are statistically lower, and the chances that you have consistent success with that strategy are lower.

As I have said many times, it is not about hitting the chances or chemistry in one season here and there. You can make the case that actually happened in 2012-13 (Groce) and 2008-09 (Weber). But that is not the recipe for consistent success, and the last 12 years prove that. Good discussion.
Now that sir I agree with as well. I definitely see where you're coming from. I really enjoyed the discussion.
 
Culture is not nonsense. Programs develop it because the individuals influence one another, and there are consequences to going outside the norms. With the amount of change year-to-year in college basketball, it's easier to change than in larger, more stable organizations, but it's most definitely there, and not some nonsense 'narrative'.
See: Wisconsin Men’s Basketball. Year after year after year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.