Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread (October 2018)

[GortTheRobot]

What do you all see as our legitimate back-up plan if/when OT signs with WVU (although I still hold out a glimmer of hope)?

I'm not sure KC is a backup, but is he the only realistic chance we have at landing a good big, or at least one that is less of a project?

 

[IlliniinIowa]

Third OV? We're on the outside looking in.

Thought he had a visit to Illinois scheduled? No?

 

[ChiefIllini]

Is Higgs a "4" or post player? If so, it seems like we've got as many as three project bigs right now. How many exactly do people want? The reason I'm asking is we've got a lot of people suggesting we take on another project (to me any big over 75 in rankings is a project). I'd like to get a big this class like everyone else. But I can also see passing on players that we truly don't believe won't pan out.

If we got a 7 footer ranked around 100, there are plenty of people who would be extremely happy, myself included.

You're comment is implying Higgs, Giorgi, and Kane will all be here next year. Way to early to say otherwise, but there's a decent chance that isn't that case. Even so, having only 3 guys to play 2 positions (I would still rather Kipper play more of the 3, or at least have a couple guys around 6'8" starting plus Kipper (if you dont like using positions)), is not good. We need at least one big in 2019 regardless of ranking. We should probably get two.

 

[TheGMan]

Higgs has the tools to be a really good 4. The dude needs to heal up and be chained to fletch.

Where is it coming from that Higgs is out of shape? Not saying you are wrong, just legitimately curious.

 

[IlliniDent]

Where is it coming from that Higgs is out of shape? Not saying you are wrong, just legitimately curious.

Widely known fact plus having a foot injury doesn't help

 

[IlliniDent]

What do you all see as our legitimate back-up plan if/when OT signs with WVU (although I still hold out a glimmer of hope)?

I'm not sure KC is a backup, but is he the only realistic chance we have at landing a good big, or at least one that is less of a project?

Timme (in no way a back up plan) is another big that we have a shot at. Tre Mitchell as well.

However, we will start hearing about more options as we go along. There are always guys that are being recruited we dont hear about.

 

[Deleted member 643761]

If we got a 7 footer ranked around 100, there are plenty of people who would be extremely happy, myself included.

You're comment is implying Higgs, Giorgi, and Kane will all be here next year. Way to early to say otherwise, but there's a decent chance that isn't that case. Even so, having only 3 guys to play 2 positions (I would still rather Kipper play more of the 3, or at least have a couple guys around 6'8" starting plus Kipper (if you dont like using positions)), is not good. We need at least one big in 2019 regardless of ranking. We should probably get two.

Well, I guess you're fine with 4 projects in the front court?

here's my point. It seems like we should be prioritizing landing an impact big and certainly bigs that are clearly better than the projects we have. Like you, I'd be over the top with a player around 100. But there's definitely a current out there suggesting we need to get on to our back up plans, which to me means they're angling for four projects.

If you feel like you can pick up your plan B in the spring, after you've seen the current three projects play, that seems to be a reasonable plan, although one that will drive a lot of people crazy

 

[bert1991]

Different tier currently, yes. Overall? Quite similar with the one championship being the primary difference.

The original analogy is pretty apt, too. Michigan was pretty awful program for a while until Beilein righted the ship. When he took over in 2007, he couldn't point to recent success like he can now, yet he still succeeded. Notably, it took him until is 4th season before he finished in the top half of the Big Ten, and then his team won the Big Ten in his 5th season.

Totally. This is where I think we are at right now. I think I see enough +++ to BU and his staff - starting with culture/ turnover of players, getting those types of players that have the athleticism and attitude to succeed in his preferred style of play. Many of the coaches most of us consider "great" have had a similar trajectory. Every once in awhile, there's the flashy new coach that has immediate results, but I would guess (operative) that many of those don't sustain that success. I, personally, can wait a few more years if what we are building is something that is sustainable because I really, really miss those many, many years of consistency - being competitive / having a shot to not only make the tournament but win the B10.

I guess what I'm saying is....I'm sailing on the "give our coach a solid 5 years" ship. We are young, athletic and very thin in the front court. I have no idea what our season holds. Given the strength of schedule, it could very well result in a similar overall record, although, I would be very disappointed if we didn't see a bump improvement in our B10 record and a whole lot of competiveness / chemistry that still allows us as fans to enjoy the season.

Sidenote: ILL in IA made the comment that age and when you started following the team impacts perception. So True!!!

 

[ChiefIllini]

Well, I guess you're fine with 4 projects in the front court?

here's my point. It seems like we should be prioritizing landing an impact big and certainly bigs that are clearly better than the projects we have. Like you, I'd be over the top with a player around 100. But there's definitely a current out there suggesting we need to get on to our back up plans, which to me means they're angling for four projects.

If you feel like you can pick up your plan B in the spring, after you've seen the current three projects play, that seems to be a reasonable plan, although one that will drive a lot of people crazy

How much more prioritizing do you want... As far as I know, we haven't even had an in home with someone shorter than 6'6" for 2019. UI is going to have a tough time signing a top 50 big. We got Oscar to visit (who is a five star recruit) and we are in his top three. All signs point to us missing, but regardless of what people want to say, we prioritized him, which is exactly what you wanted. Throw in Timme, Cockburn, Mitchell, and Walker (and im sure others im missing off the top of my head) and we are prioritizing a big about as much as a team can.

I think you would be better to focus frustrations on closing on one of the names I mentioned. That is something I can get behind, because so far, we have closed on zero top 150 bigs, let alone top 50. That's frustrating.

 

[PtownIllini8]

How much more prioritizing do you want... As far as I know, we haven't even had an in home with someone shorter than 6'6" for 2019. UI is going to have a tough time signing a top 50 big. We got Oscar to visit (who is a five star recruit) and we are in his top three. All signs point to us missing, but regardless of what people want to say, we prioritized him, which is exactly what you wanted. Throw in Timme, Cockburn, Mitchell, and Walker (and im sure others im missing off the top of my head) and we are prioritizing a big about as much as a team can.

I think you would be better to focus frustrations on closing on one of the names I mentioned. That is something I can get behind, because so far, we have closed on zero top 150 bigs, let alone top 50. That's frustrating.

So you're saying we should stop recruiting top 50-100 bigs because we haven't landed one to date???

 

[Newman]

I have a feeling that we're going to regret backing off from Austin Trice. The JUCO big from Spain looks pretty skilled but we need more athleticism in the frontcourt and guys that are projected to be strong rebounders.

 

[sacraig]

I have a feeling that we're going to regret backing off from Austin Trice.

Perhaps, but there's no use worrying about that now. Onward!

 

[OldSlowPG]

Well, I guess you're fine with 4 projects in the front court?

here's my point. It seems like we should be prioritizing landing an impact big and certainly bigs that are clearly better than the projects we have. Like you, I'd be over the top with a player around 100. But there's definitely a current out there suggesting we need to get on to our back up plans, which to me means they're angling for four projects.

If you feel like you can pick up your plan B in the spring, after you've seen the current three projects play, that seems to be a reasonable plan, although one that will drive a lot of people crazy

It doesn't sound like Giorgi is a "project" from Underwood's description of him. He has a high BB IQ, is one of our fastest players, can shoot the 3, is a good passer, appears to be a great team player and is the best dancer on the team. He may not be a top 100 big, but he's not a project. He seems to have leadership qualities and could be a solid 3+ year performer. Kane might fit the definition of a project, simply because his ceiling is so high. If I recall, he was a top 100 player in the class of 2019 before he reclassified to 2018. He can really run the court and should be a good defender and rebounder. His offense is behind his defense, however. We haven't seen/heard anything about Higgs other than he's hurt and out of shape. We really don't have a clue what he can do.

 

[Obelix]

The issue is not recruiting strategy and targeting, the issue is that so far we have not shown the ability to close with talent. Fall recruiting is the core of successful recruiting, Spring should be more opportunistic. If you miss on many of the talented bigs in the Fall, then you desperately looking for "projects" in the Spring. Chances that project players succeed are by default less. Some of the ones who do not succeed will move on, and it does not mean that all the remaining ones will have great success, just that they may have found some role on the team and have accepted that role. The cycle will unavoidably repeat until you start being successful (IF you ever become successful) landing better talent in the Fall. Rinse, repeat.

 

[TCTORNADO]

It doesn't sound like Giorgi is a "project" from Underwood's description of him. He has a high BB IQ, is one of our fastest players, can shoot the 3, is a good passer, appears to be a great team player and is the best dancer on the team. He may not be a top 100 big, but he's not a project. He seems to have leadership qualities and could be a solid 3+ year performer. Kane might fit the definition of a project, simply because his ceiling is so high. If I recall, he was a top 100 player in the class of 2019 before he reclassified to 2018. He can really run the court and should be a good defender and rebounder. His offense is behind his defense, however. We haven't seen/heard anything about Higgs other than he's hurt and out of shape. We really don't have a clue what he can do.

It's interesting how in 3 to 4 weeks, Giorgi has advanced forward to a point of being a starter and high praise from BU, OTOH, Kane has slid backwards to now being a project. IL had them reversed 3 weeks ago.

 

[ChiefIllini]

So you're saying we should stop recruiting top 50-100 bigs because we haven't landed one to date???

No. When you get top 50 guys to visit your school, you're on the right track. Peoples obsession over officials is highly unwarranted. Once we start using multiple visits on guys ranked 250+ and not getting them to commit (the important part of the sentence), then we can start worrying about how the visits are being handed out.

 

[TCTORNADO]

I have a feeling that we're going to regret backing off from Austin Trice. The JUCO big from Spain looks pretty skilled but we need more athleticism in the frontcourt and guys that are projected to be strong rebounders.

Eric Vila had a terrible collegiate start at Texas A & M and Fresno State and now is trying a 3rd stop at Northwest Florida College (Feliz' alma mater). Another 250+ big men.

 

[KrushCow31]

It's interesting how in 3 to 4 weeks, Giorgi has advanced forward to a point of being a starter and high praise from BU, OTOH, Kane has slid backwards to now being a project. IL had them reversed 3 weeks ago.

I always saw it as Giorgi, but mainly because the first video released where Underwood talked about him, he had nothing but praise for his work ethic and his bball IQ, which are two things Underwood values highly.

 

[ILL in IA]

The best thing that can happen for the bigs we need next season is that Kane, GB, and Higgs all develop and all stick around. Elite big men can help right away, but even some of the highly rated guys we missed on recently had struggles and took time to come on at the schools they chose over the beloved.

And agree with all who have stated that reaching for projects in the spring is no way to build a good foundation to the program, but I would rather be reaching for project bigs compared to a project pg or wing. Bigs will come in with the couple things for sure that you can't teach and can contribute in small chunks right away. That's height and length. A raw and foul prone Kane is still 7 foot and can impact a game with that alone.

 

[illinipioneer]

Dan, not sure if there is a thread (tried to look) but Womens BBall has had some action on the recruiting front as well

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050774450281558017

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1050572930793508864

Feel free to move

 

[Obelix]

No. When you get top 50 guys to visit your school, you're on the right track. Peoples obsession over officials is highly unwarranted. Once we start using multiple visits on guys ranked 250+ and not getting them to commit (the important part of the sentence), then we can start worrying about how the visits are being handed out.

There is some inherent problem with official visits as there is a limit and we indeed experienced that problem first hand. However, the problem is not offering Fall OVs to talented recruits. The problem is not closing and then going on desperation mode in the Spring when you start wasting OVs on project type players for some of which you still have increased competition (other teams will realize needs during the season depending on injuries and players leaving).

There are two possible solutions. The first solution (preferred) is improving your ability to close with talent in the Fall. The second solution is that you start targeting project recruits in the Fall, when project players are more likely to accept an offer from UI as there are not be many P5 high-major programs likely to offer them that early. I personally find the second solution troublesome by itself but necessity may eventually dictate adoption.

 

[illini80]

It's interesting how in 3 to 4 weeks, Giorgi has advanced forward to a point of being a starter and high praise from BU, OTOH, Kane has slid backwards to now being a project. IL had them reversed 3 weeks ago.

Maybe for a few, but I'm sure most felt like Samba's season was mostly lost when he couldn't enroll in summer school. My hope right now is he doesn't get too discouraged and bail if the season doesn't go well for him. In a perfect world he should redshirt.

 

[Obelix]

Eric Vila had a terrible collegiate start at Texas A & M and Fresno State and now is trying a 3rd stop at Northwest Florida College (Feliz' alma mater). Another 250+ big men.

 

[ILL in IA]

There is some inherent problem with official visits as there is a limit and we indeed experienced that problem first hand. However, the problem is not offering Fall OVs to talented recruits. The problem is not closing and then going on desperation mode in the Spring when you start wasting OVs on project type players for some of which you still have increased competition (other teams will realize needs during the season depending on injuries and players leaving).

There are two possible solutions. The first solution (preferred) is improving your ability to close with talent in the Fall. The second solution is that you start targeting project recruits in the Fall, when project players are more likely to accept an offer from UI as there are not be many P5 high-major programs likely to offer them that early. I personally find the second solution troublesome by itself but necessity may eventually dictate adoption.

My question for why the staff isn't closing and how that relates to OV, is how they use the OV in the recruiting process. To me, the OV is where you close. It is the most valuable thing you can offer up. You only have a select few, and the above the table way of spending money on a kid. If you have built the relationship, laid out the system and the role the recruit will play, and still are moving the process along together, then you get them on campus and try to lock it up.

I sometimes wonder if we use the OV to still build interest and the relationships. And that might be why the guys we have had on campus recently have all felt like long shots.

 

[Obelix]

I sometimes wonder if we use the OV to still build interest and the relationships. And that might be why the guys we have had on campus recently have all felt like long shots.

Even if you want to use OVs to build relationships with some highly ranked talented players, they will have no interest in that. Players like EJ Liddell, Oscar T, and Shannon want to use their official visits to help them decide which school to commit to. It does not mean that they may not be favoring a school, but they have moved way past the point of just building relationships.