Illini Basketball 2018-2019

[skyIdub]

You keep saying things like "Consistency requires talent" as if there are people who don't agree with the notion. Enough already. Most of us aren't incessantly saying the same thing because it's so damn obvious that none of us thinks it bears mentioning.

.

 

[Epsilon]

Were JG's seasons at Ohio "eerily similar" to BU's at S.F. Austin?

Not even close. Groce was 85-56 at Ohio (with only one season above .600), while BU was 89-14 at SFA (with all 3 seasons above .800). Different levels yeah yeah yeah but their dominance in each of their respective conferences was totally different.

 

[Obelix]

You keep saying things like "Consistency requires talent" as if there are people who don't agree with the notion. Enough already. Most of us aren't incessantly saying the same thing because it's so damn obvious that none of us thinks it bears mentioning.

I don't believe that BU's system is superior. I pretty much don't buy into superior systems. But I do buy into superior coaching which is getting players to perform within the system chosen. I feel that BU may very well be that sort but I understand that the support for that hope is weak at this point.

I also believe that player development is not just about taking 2 stars and making them 3 stars and so on but rather it's making players perform within your system. I think that BU has shown a lot of promise in that regard.

I'd like to upgrade the talent in the front court of course. Hell, I'm up for upgrading it in the back court.

But in two classes he's gotten Kane, Giorgi, and January. I believe that is a solid group that is capable of being part of a strong NCAA tourney team. yes it would have been nice to get a blue chipper that was contributing in a bigger way right now, but this is now a group that can compete at a 8 seed level next year and the following 2.

Again, the notion that we all knew about lack of talent (and frontcourt) is disingenuous at best. Not only were the expectations of Underwood's first couple of years totally different than what people present now (per earlier post), but even before this year started (despite last year's really bad season) there were plenty of posts about frontcourt improvement, shot blocking ability, rebounding, inside defense, etc. as well as system and positionless basketball and our guards taking apart defenses for easy kickouts and points. None of this has happened, and the right place for that discussion is 2018-19.

And while you admit that current evidence for your earlier statement about BU being a superior coach is weak, this thread is about 2018-19. Because statements about being an 8 seed next year and the following two, are also premature (we do not even know what the rosters would be) but if they happen, fine, let's discuss 2019-20 and 20-21, 22-23 in those threads.

 

[Deleted member 643761]

Again, the notion that we all knew about lack of talent (and frontcourt) is disingenuous at best. Not only were the expectations of Underwood's first couple of years totally different than what people present now (per earlier post), but even before this year started (despite last year's really bad season) there were plenty of posts about frontcourt improvement, shot blocking ability, rebounding, inside defense, etc. as well as system and positionless basketball and our guards taking apart defenses for easy kickouts and points. None of this has happened, and the right place for that discussion is 2018-19.

And while you admit that current evidence for your earlier statement about BU being a superior coach is weak, this thread is about 2018-19. Because statements about being an 8 seed next year and the following two, are also premature (we do not even know what the rosters would be) but if they happen, fine, let's discuss 2019-20 and 20-21, 22-23 in those threads.

Well, if I had said that about the lack of talent, you'd be right. But I didn't. I never addressed our current talent level. Perhaps reread what I wrote. And reread what you wrote.

Everyone, I mean everyone understands that we need talent, top talent, to become a top 25 team like most of us want. So stop changing the topic. Have people overrated our talent? Absolutely. But people over rating our talent doesn't mean that they disagree with your ad nauseum premise that we need talent.

I don't even know what to make of the second paragraph. For me it's pretty simple. I'm waiting and seeing what happens on the court and what happens in recruiting. It seems you feel compelled to make assessments based on little information. Which puts you in the same place as the people you mock for their preseason projections.

 

[Obelix]

I don't even know what to make of the second paragraph. For me it's pretty simple. I'm waiting and seeing what happens on the court and what happens in recruiting. It seems you feel compelled to make assessments based on little information. Which puts you in the same place as the people you mock for their preseason projections.

On the contrary, I did not make any assessment or projection about next year or beyond that, your are the one who talked about 8 seed next year and the next two. My discussion including recruiting has been on what has happened.

 

[Steelyunk]

What those stats don't tell you is how good the opponents are. In any case, we had a 3 in the air with maybe 10 secs left to take the lead v the #1 Zags, another that rimmed out as time expired at ND that would've won the game and lost a very close game without our best player v G'Town.

Without question. But they do sound like a team with a 2-5 record. So go ahead and feel better about the close losses, I guess. But, a word of caution: BU's record at UI in games decided by 10 or less is 8-17. It was a completely different team last year and we get the same results. Why? Maybe because we foul too much and are easy to score on?

 

[Steelyunk]

Yeah, I'd say that the opponent's points per possession is the stat that matters, and all of the other stats (FG%, turnovers, rebounds, etc.) are components of that. But what matters at the end is how many points you give up, with the pace of the game as vital context. Your opponent's PPP on offense provides necessary context as well.

I’d say the stat that matters is 2-5 and at the end of the season the stat that matters will be 10 wins.


The squad needs more talent and it’s hard to recruit talent to a team that doesn’t win.

 

[Obelix]

I’d say the stat that matters is 2-5 and at the end of the season the stat that matters will be 10 wins.

10 wins overall or in the B1G?

 

[Steelyunk]

10 wins overall or in the B1G?

Overall.

 

[Steelyunk]

Overall.

Hope I’m WAAYYYYY off.

 

[Deleted member 643761]

On the contrary, I did not make any assessment or projection about next year or beyond that, your are the one who talked about 8 seed next year and the next two. My discussion including recruiting has been on what has happened.

Lol. Im talking about you for this season.

You spent months complaining about no big which we now have committed. Now you seem to be assuming the team we see on the court is a near final product.

We got a front court guy that should make you happy but it isn't for some reason. I think we're showing some progress on the court. But I understand those not feeling that way.

But your arguments right now seem to be a moving target. I jumped in on this discussion because you talked about needing consistency in recruiting. Now you're telling us any discussion that piints beyond 18-19 is inappropriate.

Make up your mind.

 

[Deleted member 643761]

Huh? I did not make any prediction or assessment about the rest of the season. I have discussed the season and the games so far, and have also given my assessment about the state of recruiting in Underwood era so far. I am assuming the team on the court is final product? I have never said that, it is a big lie, especially considering that I have said the exact opposite after the MVS game: "I expect the team to improve, I would be surprised if they don't. "

I have said nothing about January because I usually comment on recruits I have actually seen on the AAU tour or HS games or have input from other coaches that I trust who have seen or coached them. And it is not just a quantity game in recruiting, I have never complained about "a big", we need talented frontcourt/inside players. The state of recruiting at UI (even with January that I am pretty sure not many have ever seen in games) is still not where it should be, or should have been so far in BU's tenure. Weak and empty fall recruiting classes (January did not sign yet) which are the cornerstones of recruiting, many misses (not only with top recruits), taking some wild shots and offers with recruits (even offering scholarships to players who end up walkons at other schools), running out of OVs, and many of BU's own recruits either leaving or not panning out so far. Based on what has actually happened, I do not think anyone with a straight face can say that recruiting has been going well so far, or that results on court so far have been good. And please don't start with projecting on future recruits, because I have made zero predictions on future recruiting classes.

The one who seems to be making unsubstantiated predictions is you, yet you accuse me of predictions/assessments based on little evidence. Next year and two years after that? Are you serious? We do not even know what the roster will look next year, you are projecting into 2021-22?

Well if we can't judge recruiting based on what people might do in the future then all recruiting sucks. After all thy might all leave.

Our recruiting should be better. But these two classes plus frazier is enough for us to be a tourney team. And yes I'm making the assumption that these players stay and stay healthy and our planes all safely land. Every single projection is based on that.

I guess I'm less concerned about your so called wild shots. They're wild to us. But I'm less inclined to see georgi as a wild shot and more inclined to see him as a miss by others.

As to people not having seen january i have no answer. Most of us look at rankings. And then we trust the coach. Are you suggesting that the only people who should express happiness over January are those who have seen him?

 

[GortTheRobot]

I have to ask...what is wrong with us?

 

[Obelix]

I have to ask...what is wrong with us?

The short answer is bad administrative and coaching decisions that totally reversed momentum at critical points in time. Probation definitely hurt us badly but we recovered very nicely with the consecutive hires of Kruger and Self. Between 2000-2005, IIRC Illinois had the second best winning record in the entire college basketball (after Duke). Tremendous momentum built on talent and consecutive years of strong recruiting during the Kruger and Self eras. The hiring of Weber reversed all that momentum, a terrible fit for Illinois. In an earlier post, I had posted some excerpts from a short article I had written on the Weber era and sharp decline, some facts about the program he inherited and the program he left behind. While we have never recovered since, and situation looks bleak right now, I believe Illinois basketball still has great potential and can return to prominence. I think the Illinois basketball situation has better overall chances for recovery but IMO (others disagree) it will not happen without very strong and consistent recruiting results.

 

[GortTheRobot]

I appreciate the reply Obelix, and I agree with your assessment. I hope admin understands that universities, even those who have a strong academic standing, still benefit from strong athletic programs. Most students, regardless of their focus on a particular major, still desire the overall college experience, and pride in the accomplishments of their sports teams are a part of that enjoyment. I was lucky enough to experience that, and I hope we have it again soon, both for our students and our fan base.

 

[the national]

Who do you propose we blame for the current roster construction?

You don't get to say "oh man, lots of roster turnover is what is causing this to be a rough rebuild, we shouldn't blame the coach" because the coach is the one who creates the turnover.

And the idea that anyone is looking at our roster and thinking "too much talent, I better go some place else" is laughable.

Bob - you simply can’t conclude that Underwood created the roster turnover. No one outside the actual team knows what was going on. You choose to conclude that it’s underwoods fault that all those players left. I don’t know that I agree with that. A lot of things happen in the locker room that the fans never hear about. I will say in an early season interview that Frazier said the locker room culture has significantly improved and guys like hanging out with each other this year.

 

[1970 John]

I hope admin understands that universities, even those who have a strong academic standing, still benefit from strong athletic programs.

Someone, perhaps Whitman, maybe who hired him, said something about athletics being a university's "front porch." I would call it the school's curb appeal. If a school like Illinois has a crappy athletic program, and doesn't care about it, what does that say about the school overall? In truth, it doesn't affect the university's academics, but it does affect the appearance of the university. And with the dismal status of Illinois finances and politics, Illinois, the reputation of the University of Illinois can use a boost.

 

[jrichisamazing]

Bob - you simply can’t conclude that Underwood created the roster turnover. No one outside the actual team knows what was going on. You choose to conclude that it’s underwoods fault that all those players left. I don’t know that I agree with that. A lot of things happen in the locker room that the fans never hear about. I will say in an early season interview that Frazier said the locker room culture has significantly improved and guys like hanging out with each other this year.

Agreed but let’s see what that locker room is like after a long, tough, losing season.

 

[sbillini]

Someone, perhaps Whitman, maybe who hired him, said something about athletics being a university's "front porch." I would call it the school's curb appeal. If a school like Illinois has a crappy athletic program, and doesn't care about it, what does that say about the school overall? In truth, it doesn't affect the university's academics, but it does affect the appearance of the university. And with the dismal status of Illinois finances and politics, Illinois, the reputation of the University of Illinois can use a boost.

I love Illinois athletics. It's the only "team" I'm truly a fan of (as opposed to casually watching and cheering for and/or just watching for entertainment purposes). But to say that a school's crappy athletic program can be extended as a direct reflection of its academic program (or vice a versa) is ludicrous, imo. Yes UIUC has been heading in the wrong direction in both, and there may be some relationship, but that's the exception, rather than the rule, and I would argue that most of it has been more a coincidence than anything.

Yes, the athletic program is part of the university and does represent it to some degree. But Power 5 athletic programs are so different than a traditional academic program model (reputation, staffing, financial, KPI's etc. etc. etc.), that making direct connections between the two outside of extreme circumstances is crazy, imo.

 

[Obelix]

But to say that a school's crappy athletic program can be extended as a direct reflection of its academic program (or vice a versa) is ludicrous, imo.

He did not say that, he specifically said "In truth, it doesn't affect the university's academics, but it does affect the appearance of the university" which is absolutely true. Athletics (not only varsity teams, but rec as well) have become a huge part of education and Universities spend and extraordinary amount of money upgrading facilities even for the general population. It is a huge part of attracting a larger number of qualifying candidates and donations.

During the three-year period during the mid-1980s, the number of applicants to Georgetown skyrocketed by 45 percent, also known as the "Patrick Ewing Effect." That effect helped boost Georgetown academics and significantly affected, not only donations to the AD department but also the academic programs. The same effect happened to Duke due to the increased visibility and prominence of their basketball program and has been happening at many Universities.

 

[sbillini]

He did not say that, he specifically said "In truth, it doesn't affect the university's academics, but it does affect the appearance of the university" which is absolutely true. Athletics (not only varsity teams, but rec as well) have become a huge part of education and Universities spend and extraordinary amount of money upgrading facilities even for the general population. It is a huge part of attracting a larger number of qualifying candidates and donations.

During the three-year period during the mid-1980s, the number of applicants to Georgetown skyrocketed by 45 percent, also known as the "Patrick Ewing Effect." That effect helped boost Georgetown academics and significantly affected, not only donations to the AD department but also the academic programs. The same effect happened to Duke due to the increased visibility and prominence of their basketball program and has been happening at many Universities.

I may have inferred something in what he said that I shouldn't have.

But disagree with everything else you've said. I can call out as many, if not more, anecdotal exceptions as you can. Penn state grew it's endowment massively under JoePa. Sure, you can say athletics played a meaningful role in that, but the academic standing in the University has not meaningfully improved during that time. Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Syracuse, Nebraska, even Ohio State. All top tier athletic programs and, more importantly, sustained top tier programs. But can you say any of those schools have meaningfully improved academically to any degree relative to schools without major athletic programs? I'm not saying any of those schools are poor schools, I think they're all good. But their athletic programs are the Harvard's of college sports, their academics have never been.

The only programs I can think of that have sustained academic and athletic success are Michigan, UNC, Duke, Notre Dame, Texas. But there's another, more important correlation between those schools than their athletic success - it's the years they were founded. All were founded before the land grant act. You look across all colleges, and that's a big driver in academic standing. Having a great athletic program typically doesn't change that.

 

[bobbob]

Bob - you simply can’t conclude that Underwood created the roster turnover. No one outside the actual team knows what was going on. You choose to conclude that it’s underwoods fault that all those players left. I don’t know that I agree with that. A lot of things happen in the locker room that the fans never hear about. I will say in an early season interview that Frazier said the locker room culture has significantly improved and guys like hanging out with each other this year.

Compared to so many preseason comments about how "the locker room culture is bad, but we'll play through" that litter articles about teams in November.

You can say that is all the separate players faults. That's a bit like saying all your exes are crazy. It ignores the common denominator in each of those relationships.

 

[Ramrod2010]

We may not win a conference game before February.

 

[Obelix]

But disagree with everything else you've said. I can call out as many, if not more, anecdotal exceptions as you can

You better start by doing some research on the subject, because your knowledge on the subject does not seem very impressive.. There are many articles published in academia about the effect of athletics, especially revenue sports (football and basketball) on academic institutions, including articles by Harvard Business School professors published in prestigious academic journals and also republished in highly valued general economic publications (e.g., Forbes and others). Based on research by Harvard Business School, the effects are simply startling:

• When a school rises from mediocre to great on the gridiron, applications increase by 18.7 percent.
• To attain similar effects, a school has to either lower tuition by 3.8 percent or increase the quality of its education by recruiting higher-quality faculty, who are paid 5 percent more than their average peers in the academic labor market.
• Students with lower-than-average SAT scores tended to have a stronger preference for schools known for athletic success, while students with higher SAT scores preferred institutions with greater academic quality. Also, students with lower academic prowess valued the success of intercollegiate athletics for longer periods of time than the high SAT achievers.
• Even students with high SAT scores are significantly affected by athletic success—one of the biggest surprises from the research, Chung says.
• Schools become more academically selective with athletic success.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/hbswor...ess-boosts-college-applications/#28daf9586e96

 

[Berg88]

Way better than Groce ball. The short term memory effect is real. That was agonizing. It’s bad now, but not that bad, regardless of the record. Groce never played a tough schedule, either.

We need an alarm that goes off when people make things up about Groce to make Underwood seem better. 2013 we had the #5 SOS according to KenPom. 2014 was #15 SOS.