We've also lost our 'reputation momentum'
Looking back on recent Illini Basketball history
We've also lost our 'reputation momentum'
If you look at the Illini history 1980-present there are two distinct eras (not the entire 1980-2012 era) that differentiate from the rest of the years with respect to Consistent Success & Talent. Those two eras are The 80s (End Years: 81-90) and Beginning of Millennium (End Years: 2000-06). That is 17 years (out of 38 total years) that completely differentiate from the rest (21 years) along the aforementioned parameters, defining the golden era of modern Illini basketball (for lack of better term). These two eras are comprised of consecutive years each.
Consistent Success:
- In the golden eras, we had a combined overall record of 421-135 (76%) and B1G conference record of 206-86 (71%). The rest of the years, we had a combined overall record of 394-290 (58%) and a B1G conference record of 174-198 (47%).
- In the golden eras we made the NCAA tournament 16 out of 17 years (1 NIT in 1982). The rest years we made the NCAA tournament 8 out of 21 years.
- In the golden eras we made 4 Sweet 16s, 2 Elite 8s, and 2 Final Fours. The rest of the years, we never made it past first weekend.
Talent:
- Out of our 13 McD All-Americans, 10 of them played in the golden era. Only 3 never played in the golden era (Deon Thomas, Richard Keene and Jeremy Richmond) and actually Thomas was recruited at the peak of 89 before probation (the paradox is that his recruitment led to probation).
- 18 Illini were selected as All-Americans during the golden eras, only 1 the rest of the years (again Deon Thomas in 1994, HM by AP).
- 8 Illini were selected on All-Regional NCAA Tournament Teams during the golden eras. None the rest of the years.
- 4 Illini have received B1G POY honors during the golden era. None the rest of the years.
- 17 Illini have been selected 1st Team All-B1G during the golden era. Only 2 the rest of the years.
As you can see, there is a startling difference in both consistent success AND talent during those 2 eras, compared with the rest of the years. So what happened the rest of the years? Two distinct eras: Probation & Post Probation/Recovery (the 90s), and the Post-Dee era (2007-2018). In the first era, the damage was exogenous (i.e., Probation) that significantly hindered talent infusion. In the second era, the damage was self-inflicted, making the wrong choice (i.e., Weber) that also hindered talent infusion.
I am a firm believer that consistent success and talent (via strong recruiting) go hand in hand as shown in Illini history above. Personally, I seriously doubt that we can achieve the first without the second. (Sorry for the long post).
Cowboyup247365
- Houston Tx
Groce got bit by the injury bug pretty badly. Thorn never made it back to full health and loosing Nunn was what killed him. Thru it all he still had the teams on the bubble at tourney time.
sacraig
- The desert
I'd say the way you expect to do this is because one has no bearing on the other. For example, Syracuse doesn't get all of the best players from New York, yet they do pretty well for themselves, I'd say. Yes, we'd like to get more of the top players from Illinois, but really, I think we all just want good players so the team will start winning again. As long as that happens, I don't care if they are all from the Moon. Winning, in turn, will make it easier to recruit our top in-state talent.
Super nitpicky, but I would argue that the proper year spans would be either 81-90 and 98-06 OR 84-89 and 01-05. Depending on if you want to be very inclusive or very isolated on the peaks. The 81 emergence, followed by the graduation of a bunch of seniors and a step back in 82 as young talent developed and key future pieces were recruited, pretty well matches what happened in 98 and 99.
I'd be inclined to go with the broader definition just because it feels wrong to leave a Big Ten Championship out of the definition of the Golden Age.
I'd be inclined to go with the broader definition just because it feels wrong to leave a Big Ten Championship out of the definition of the Golden Age.
sacraig
- The desert
I am honestly not sure why you continue to argue this point. My entire point is that the era between your two golden eras is not even that bad, and is lightyears ahead of the post-Dee era. In the 10 year between your golden eras (I'll dub it the interregnum, between the reigns of King Henson and King Self, though this does still include some Henson), we still went to 6 NCAA tournaments and had 2 of the remaining 3 MCDAAs (and in a shorter time frame than the current dark ages).
My only point is that we really had almost 30 years of sustained success and the talent level was undoubtedly higher (as well as the coaching level) during that entire era. You can remove the interregnum from your calculations or include it, but it doesn't really change the core point, and I honestly think leaving it in there makes your core point stronger (and more depressing).
Honestly, I am done arguing this. It's rather pointless. If you wish to only consider the golden eras as part of the good years, that is your prerogative. It doesn't alter the conclusion.
I'd agree with this, as far as the end result (i.e., best players from anywhere). But as far as reality though, if we can't get some of the best players from Illinois where we have some advantage as slight as it can be (e.g., location, MIF connection, etc.) what makes us optimistic that we can get some of the best players from other states?
One reason maybe a national recruiter, like Antigua. It actually puzzles me though that we have not seen that yet almost all coaches I talk to (most out-of-state) they all rave to me about Antigua (e.g., "Orlando is good..."). Maybe it is a matter of time, that is why I am more hopeful that somehow our recruiting momentum will change, rather than we will just find diamonds in the rough who will consistently overachieve.
The period that makes for an easier analogy to the Post-Dee era, at this point, is the time between the Slush Fund and 81.
Conference record of 84-122 in that 13 year span, in the 12 years post Dee it's 91-123.
sacraig
- The desert
I think we kind of oversell the advantages we allegedly have. I think there is a lot of pressure for people to leave Chicago in the areas where the basketball talent tends to be concentrated for socioeconomic reasons, and I think we probably get sort of lumped in there with that sentiment, being the state school. So in that sense, I don't think geography really helps us that much. Add to that the fact that we haven't had any real success since these kids were first learning to dribble and I'd say we have a pretty uphill battle right now.
Is Antigua the lead on Walker? That would be a pretty good pickup from the East Coast. It is difficult to expect a guy to come into a downtrodden program like ours and start reeling in 5-star talent like he did at Kentucky. However, if he can start pulling in his share of 4-star guys from various places around the country, that can go a long way toward righting the ship (and eventually helping land a 5-star or two).
Don't agree with this at all. I'd rather have a national recruiting presence than a great Illinois one.
First, you included 32 years including the entire Weber era (through 2012) in your original post (post #82), which is also post-Dee. We have not had 32 years of consistent success and talent. That is not true. I gave you the numbers and clear breakouts including the comparisons, that was the clear consistent golden era of Illini basketball. The 90s were not, the B1G record during the in-between period that you claim is 52.5% compared to 71% in the golden era. It does not mean that there were not some scattered successes (as were in the post-Dee era) but probation had a clear negative impact on consistent success, talent/recruiting, team, and individual accolades.
And the entire Weber era was success? (your post #82) Do you honestly believe that? Nobody argues that the post-Dee era has not been even worse that the 90s (which includes Weber), certainly not me, but that was not part of your original post either.
sacraig
- The desert
Like I said, I am done arguing with you on this. It is pointless, especially if you are going to split hairs over things that are immaterial to the point we are both trying to make.
scanned this last page and I felt compelled to verify this was the illinoia hoops recruiting page....I thought maybe I fumbled on a new Illinois Eras past and Present thread. Interesting reading.
Any news on the anticipated Walker "silent verbal" commitment today?
Any news on the anticipated Walker "silent verbal" commitment today?
Thank you!!! 99% of this thread needs to go somewhere besides the recruiting thread!! Ridiculous !!
And has nothing to do with current recruiting.....
Why do Obelix and 2nd and chalmers keep derailing threads with eeyore attitude? Look, most fans know we arent good right now and need to pick up recruiting, but please, lets focus on the current recruiting. Hopefully, we get a big to commit soon...
This board would have one page a week if it was just limited to recruiting updates. I recommend twitter if you want to avoid these related albeit somewhat frustrating discussions on recruiting.
Deleted member 29907
D
Guest
Or the “Ignore” function.
ILL in IA
- Iowa City
I know he was Mr Basketball, but was Dee the top ranked prospect in the state or was that Dockery?
Hot Take! In the Loyalty Hivemind these are the 2 most overrated seasons.
Leonard becomes a lottery pick because his potential is sky high as a 7'1" kid with a nice frame and incredible athlete that created some great highlight reel dunks & blocks, meanwhile he was still learning to play basketball at a high level.
Dee Brown has a worse season by the numbers than his junior year when he was arguably the 3rd best guard on the team, but because Sporting news names him player of the year & besides everyone loves Dee this season becomes an altering force level.
It does have to do with recruiting. There has been a lot of discussion and debate on recruiting strategies (e.g., building success through top recruits, versus recruiting lesser ranked recruits who fit a system, appropriate use of OVs on different level of recruits, the ability of staff to close on recruiting targets, geographical focus, i.e., state-focused versus national recruiting, etc.). Drawing inferences from illini history and periods of success, correlation of consistent success with recruiting and talent level, etc. are certainly appropriate topics for discussion and debate on the recruiting thread. This is indeed a "discussion" board, not just a twitter thread. If you have something to contribute, or discuss, please do. Otherwise you are wasting time and space with irrelevant personal comments about poster X or poster Y.
Sadly I wasn't a season ticket holder in 05 so I didn't see Dee's junior year in person, but I can't disagree more on him being the 3rd best guard on the team in 06. Dee's ability to disrupt an opposing offense with his ball pressure was extraordinary, something that really came through seeing it live.
With Meyers it was just that he was a different sort of physical specimen than anyone else on the floor, no one could match up with him.
Nobody answered my attempt to talk about current recruiting!:
I haven't seen much of this kid, I would love to know more!
That is an exaggeration, for a player who no one could match up with, it is certainly a big surprise that he only got Honorable Mention and not 1st, 2nd or even 3rd All-B1G team on either poll. It was certainly enjoyable to see him come to life and become very solid after a disappointing freshman season where most fans expected more, but you are exaggerating in your evaluation of him.
I thought Dee certainly deserved the accolades and 1st team unanimous selection on both polls that year. Was he much improved from 2005? I do not think so, but his senior year certainly cemented his place as arguably the most impactful personality in modern illini history, truly exemplifying the Fighting Illini spirit and becoming the poster boy of college basketball in that era.
He was clearly the best guard on the team in 06, I was talking 05 with Deron & Luther.
You seem to be making 2 points here: For 03, We had Luther Head, Nick Smith, and Jack Ingram all listed in 2001 as well, while
1st on self as a recruiter, I don't think comparing Weber's best 3 year run in 9 years to Self's 3 years here really makes that point, saying Weber's high point was almost equal to Self's mean doesn't work.
2nd that talent was equal in 03/04 vs. 11/12, I think when you take a deeper dive there is more going on than rankings. Some other players like Head, Ingram, & Smith ended up being good to decent players, while Richmond was already gone by 2011, 2011 was still missing a pg & backing up with a raw freshman 5.