Looking back on recent Illini Basketball history

[lonelytylenol]

Would @Dan ever consider splitting this thread into 2?

1. recruiting rumors and news
2. recruiting discussion (debating, historical analysis, armchair program management, and freakouts over the number of available scholarships and official visits go in here)

Clearly there are several of us who would enjoy having access to #1 without having to wade through #2. For those who like both, they'd both still be accessible. Please stop suggesting ignore as a solution. I want to see what people have to say when they are posting about #1.

Maybe if enough people click Like on this post, he'll consider?

 

[sacraig]

One solution is to only look in this thread during a particularly busy recruiting time, such as during evaluation periods or (admittedly now) during visits. We just need to get a commit or two and things will turn around on here.

 

[Spanky]

Recruiting at Illinois dropped significantly when Self left. It does not mean that some highly talented recruits indeed did not pan out (e.g., Richmond), or that Weber did not recruit some talented players (e.g., Leonard) but overall the talent level on our roster dropped from 2000-06.

The issue is that the talent level from 2000 - 2006 was never going to be sustainable, and you can simply look at how those teams were constructed and realize the luck/circumstances involved. Why was 2001 so good? Easy. There were 3 McDonald's All Americans (Frank, Marcus, Brian) all in downstate Central IL. Credit to Rob Judson/Kruger for landing them. But, let's be honest. That circumstance will most likely never happen again. It's been nearly 20 years, there's never been that type of talent in central IL. Take the Peoria kids off of 2000-2003, and that's just an average Illinois team even with Bill Self coaching.

Then you take a look at 2003-2006. Why were those teams so good? For one, I think Weber got the most out of them. However, there was again lots of luck/development involved in that you had players that Illinois has usually been able to land (guys ranked 20 to 100+ - not the super elite guys) and a few vastly outplayed their rankings and they just happened to be all on the same team. Deron Williams becomes a top 5 draft pick. No one could have forecast that. He was ranked like 50. Augustine/Head both get drafted. Augie was around 75 and Head wasn't even in the top 100. Since 2006, Illinois has landed plenty of guys that were ranked around Deron/Augie/Head. But hardly any turned into great players, and you never had a group of them together all turn great on one team. So 2003-2006, wasn't a function of super recruiting IMO, it was simply alot of luck in terms of individual development.

So getting back to recruiting (since this is a recruiting thread), from my perspective coaching is far more important than the recruiting. I don't expect Illinois to land top 20 kids from Chicago (or anywhere else) because it has hardly ever happened even when Illinois has been great. But where Illinois needs to have its competitive advantage is in getting the most out of the kids ranked 35 - 100. Land those guys, and develop them. Weber (once he hired Jerrance) was able to land those guys. He just didn't develop them into a good team. Groce was able to land guys in that area (and failed coaching wise). Underwood has really struggled even landing those core guys that any coach at Illinois should be able to get (talking instate top 100s). It will be very difficult for any coach at Illinois to be successful if you miss on downstate top 60 talent (Liddell, Okoro, KBD, Tilmon). So right now, I'm discouraged about Underwood. But I still think the coaching that he does with the talent he does have is far more important (and the results that come with it), than holding him to some recruiting standard that he's never gonna meet and really shouldn't be expected to meet (2000-2006 talent levels).

 

[sacraig]

The issue is that the talent level from 2000 - 2006 was never going to be sustainable, and you can simply look at how those teams were constructed and realize the luck/circumstances involved.

I frankly disagree. There is no reason why we, with the proper coach and a little bit of sustained success similar to what we used to have, couldn't keep up that constant influx of talent and remain in the upper echelon of the Big Ten and, really, the NCAA, for an extended period. Someone just has to break the seal.

 

[Spanky]

I frankly disagree. There is no reason why we, with the proper coach and a little bit of sustained success similar to what we used to have, couldn't keep up that constant influx of talent and remain in the upper echelon of the Big Ten and, really, the NCAA, for an extended period. Someone just has to break the seal.

Did you even read my post? 2000-2006 talent levels happened because of very lucky circumstances. There was nothing "repeatable" about those things. Another coach can't land 3 McDonald's All Americans from Central IL, because there aren't 3 McDAA from Central IL to even recruit. No coach should be expected to recruit 3 sub top 50 guys, and have all 3 become NBA players on the same team. That again, is not a repeatable thing. That's a "luck" thing. Even after that time frame, Weber and Groce kept bringing in similar rated recruits, and didn't have the success that 2003-2006 had. I'd argue there was still an ongoing "influx of talent", it simply didn't achieve what 2000 - 2006 did because 2000-2006 is the anomaly.

Too many people think that 2000-2006 is some established repeatable level and all it takes is this recruit or that coach. And it's not, especially if you look at the specifics of how Illinois got there. Central IL doesn't produce McDonalds All-Americans. That's a fact. Most players ranked 50+ don't become NBA players, and certainly a group of them all on the same team is extremely rare. That's a fact.

 

[Deleted member 643761]

Did you even read my post? 2000-2006 talent levels happened because of very lucky circumstances. There was nothing "repeatable" about those things. Another coach can't land 3 McDonald's All Americans from Central IL, because there aren't 3 McDAA from Central IL to even recruit. No coach should be expected to recruit 3 sub top 50 guys, and have all 3 become NBA players on the same team. That again, is not a repeatable thing. That's a "luck" thing. Even after that time frame, Weber and Groce kept bringing in similar rated recruits, and didn't have the success that 2003-2006 had. I'd argue there was still an ongoing "influx of talent", it simply didn't achieve what 2000 - 2006 did because 2000-2006 is the anomaly.

Too many people think that 2000-2006 is some established repeatable level and all it takes is this recruit or that coach. And it's not, especially if you look at the specifics of how Illinois got there. Central IL doesn't produce McDonalds All-Americans. That's a fact. Most players ranked 50+ don't become NBA players, and certainly a group of them all on the same team is extremely rare. That's a fact.

You're ignoring the 80s.

 

[Spanky]

You're ignoring the 80s.

Illinois owned Chicago in the 1980s. Really owned the entire state but had a strong foothold in Chicago. Is that repeatable in today's recruiting climate? I think recruiting back then, was far more regional and thus it was easier to protect your home turf that it is today. Today, you gotta compete against everybody in the country if there's a Parker, Okafor, Alexander, Davis, Rose type player in Chicago.

The pride in the state school between the 1980s, and today isn't even close. Illinois was revered in the 1980s as a destination place. You had the IHSA finals in Champaign, you had strong connections to Simeon, King, Westinghouse. Even the student population itself was mainly Illinois kids, and that created lot of state pride. Lot of enthusiasm for "staying home" and producing for the state school. Today, you got 25% of undergrads that are foreign students (not just out of state). And the IHSA finals aren't even in Champaign anymore. That connection to Chicago, and even to the entire state just isn't there anymore (relative the 80s). I think that's what the school administration wants, which I think hurts the athletic dept.

 

[Ga65]

What has been the effect of AAU basketball? Seems it gives a lot more exposure to kids on a national basis that wasn't available in the 80's. (Particularly for the 50-150 rankings who probably would have only been seen locally.)

 

[Obelix]

The issue is that the talent level from 2000 - 2006 was never going to be sustainable, and you can simply look at how those teams were constructed and realize the luck/circumstances involved... I don't expect Illinois to land top 20 kids from Chicago (or anywhere else) because it has hardly ever happened even when Illinois has been great.

2000-2006 talent levels happened because of very lucky circumstances. There was nothing "repeatable" about those things.

First, your statement that landing top kids from Chicago (or anywhere else) hardly ever happened even when Illinois has been great is wrong. It happened in the 80s pretty regularly and Dee was also a Chicago kid. And independent of losing CV when Self left (expected), the fact that Self could land someone like CV shows that it did happen from elsewhere as well.

The rest of your premise is that consistent success is unattainable and that recruiting is all about luck. I totally disagree with. The fact that Illinois had two golden eras which were comprised of multiple consecutive years (see post #52) in different time periods (80s vs 2000s) proves exactly that. Even their ending did not happen because of natural fading but it was due to specific disruptive evens (i.e., probation, Weber).

Having very strong consistent recruiting (as the golden eras represent) has nothing to do with luck. The circumstances and dynamics of environment change but strong recruiters adapt to the changing environment. There are always very strong recruiters in different eras, always. The dynamics were still very different in the 80s and 2000s and Illinois still did it in both eras. It is not easy, and as I have said multiple times in the past, in order for a coach to be very successful at Illinois he has to be a very strong recruiter. I am a firm believer that consistent success can't happen without very strong recruiting. Others believe it can happen with lesser talent playing for a system (most often implying that we do not have a very good recruiter as HC) or that we should bring the bar down as consistent success is something unattainable (your post). But in both cases our own history so far proves otherwise.

 

[Second and Chalmers]

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.

My point, in a nutshell, is that "recruiting", "talent", and "roster quality" are three different things, and none of the three are exactly congruent to "team quality" either.

From 2009 to 2011 we RECRUITED as well as we had from 2001 to 2003 when we assembled the best team in our history, a dominant national force. And yet over the same time horizon that later team was a disaster, partially with the same coach as the earlier team.

Which at the time caused me to open my eyes and say "hey wait a minute, winning the big recruiting battles doesn't seem to be the secret sauce like I thought it was". And as I've watched both Illinois and the national scene since then, I just see more and more evidence that heavy, predominant focus on getting elite prospects to take your hat off the table is an inaccurate way to look at college basketball.

 

[goillini30]

The issue is that the talent level from 2000 - 2006 was never going to be sustainable, and you can simply look at how those teams were constructed and realize the luck/circumstances involved. Why was 2001 so good? Easy. There were 3 McDonald's All Americans (Frank, Marcus, Brian) all in downstate Central IL. Credit to Rob Judson/Kruger for landing them. But, let's be honest. That circumstance will most likely never happen again. It's been nearly 20 years, there's never been that type of talent in central IL. Take the Peoria kids off of 2000-2003, and that's just an average Illinois team even with Bill Self coaching.

Then you take a look at 2003-2006. Why were those teams so good? For one, I think Weber got the most out of them. However, there was again lots of luck/development involved in that you had players that Illinois has usually been able to land (guys ranked 20 to 100+ - not the super elite guys) and a few vastly outplayed their rankings and they just happened to be all on the same team. Deron Williams becomes a top 5 draft pick. No one could have forecast that. He was ranked like 50. Augustine/Head both get drafted. Augie was around 75 and Head wasn't even in the top 100. Since 2006, Illinois has landed plenty of guys that were ranked around Deron/Augie/Head. But hardly any turned into great players, and you never had a group of them together all turn great on one team. So 2003-2006, wasn't a function of super recruiting IMO, it was simply alot of luck in terms of individual development.

So getting back to recruiting (since this is a recruiting thread), from my perspective coaching is far more important than the recruiting. I don't expect Illinois to land top 20 kids from Chicago (or anywhere else) because it has hardly ever happened even when Illinois has been great. But where Illinois needs to have its competitive advantage is in getting the most out of the kids ranked 35 - 100. Land those guys, and develop them. Weber (once he hired Jerrance) was able to land those guys. He just didn't develop them into a good team. Groce was able to land guys in that area (and failed coaching wise). Underwood has really struggled even landing those core guys that any coach at Illinois should be able to get (talking instate top 100s). It will be very difficult for any coach at Illinois to be successful if you miss on downstate top 60 talent (Liddell, Okoro, KBD, Tilmon). So right now, I'm discouraged about Underwood. But I still think the coaching that he does with the talent he does have is far more important (and the results that come with it), than holding him to some recruiting standard that he's never gonna meet and really shouldn't be expected to meet (2000-2006 talent levels).

I've always thought that Illinois needs to live in that 50-125 RSCI range. With good positional balance, player development, and x's and o's we can win a lot with that level of player. Then we can start trying to grab those higher rated guys.

 

[Second and Chalmers]

I feel like a very thorough and well-defined program identity in terms of style of play and personality of players and all the rest of it, matched with a high quality ability to scout for those things, is going to lead you to the right players better than recruiting rankings will. Generally speaking, a power conference program that is performing at a high level is pretty regularly going to have at least a couple of top 100 guys, but there are exceptions to even that.

But I think the Wisconsin example is instructive. Whether it's a top 10 player in the country like Brian Butch or a young kid from the middle of nowhere with no offers like Ethan Happ, their guys are their guys.

 

[Illwinsagain]

I've always thought that Illinois needs to live in that 50-125 RSCI range. With good positional balance, player development, and x's and o's we can win a lot with that level of player. Then we can start trying to grab those higher rated guys.

I am close to this, thinking we can live in the 25 - 100 range. But, BU states that he doesn't care about the rating services. Point being, the player that on campus now is #148ish. Though, I bet we would all be happy with a verbal.

 

[Obelix]

Nor does it have much basis in logic. Hence the rah rah rah's. Based on your comments over time, basketball is a living for you, so I understand the wholly logical approach to the vast majority of your postings. Very few of us fans see the Illini basketball team in the same vein as you do. For most of us fans, it's as simple as being overly optimistic is a lot more fun then being overly critical or pessimistic. It doesn't mean either side is in the right or wrong. We're just different.

I had played basketball for a long time I still do coach so in that sense basketball has always been part of my life. But just to clarify, I am not currently making a "living" off basketball neither do I plan to, my primary professional career does not involve basketball.

As far as fandom, IMO it has nothing to do with being illogical, fandom has to do with support. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have never wavered on my Illini support for 35 years. I do enjoy posting on Illini message boards and I do enjoy different opinions and have posted for 30 years (since the early college basketball lists on UNIX machines). I disagree that logic and rationality lead to pessimism, I am generally an optimist, I just don't like to cloud my judgement. I understand that others enjoy Illini message boards to feel good about their team independent of logic/reality, I just enjoy it for the purpose of not only sharing information but also for engaging on discussion with different opinions on Illini.

We are all different. Many posters take things too personally IMO, often calling out poster X, or poster Y, or poster Z, or even engaging in name calling (to be later deleted)... and it is often very obvious that agreements/disagreements/opinions stem from "who" posted something rather than "what" the content of the post was. I do not engage into that, I stick to content, and try to quote specific content, thus I have agreed and disagreed on different topics with most people. At he end, at least per my definition (support), we are all fans. It should never be personal.

 

[Illinnoying Orange]

I had played basketball for a long time I still do coach so in that sense basketball has always been part of my life. But just to clarify, I am not currently making a "living" off basketball neither do I plan to, my primary professional career does not involve basketball.

As far as fandom, IMO it has nothing to do with being illogical, fandom has to do with support. Fortunately or unfortunately, I have never wavered on my Illini support for 35 years. I do enjoy posting on Illini message boards and I do enjoy different opinions and have posted for 30 years (since the early college basketball lists on UNIX machines). I disagree that logic and rationality lead to pessimism, I am generally an optimist, I just don't like to cloud my judgement. I understand that others enjoy Illini message boards to feel good about their team independent of logic/reality, I just enjoy it for the purpose of not only sharing information but also for engaging on discussion with different opinions on Illini.

We are all different. Many posters take things too personally IMO, often calling out poster X, or poster Y, or poster Z, or even engaging in name calling (to be later deleted)... and it is often very obvious that agreements/disagreements/opinions stem from "who" posted something rather than "what" the content of the post was. I do not engage into that, I stick to content, and try to quote specific content, thus I have agreed and disagreed on different topics with most people. At he end, at least per my definition (support), we are all fans. It should never be personal.

Very good post.

 

[soupy17]

If order of finish in the Big Ten were determined strictly by recruiting rankings, the last decade would have gone down profoundly differently.

So I decided that I'm going to do this between now and this weekend for the past 10 seasons, just because I'm interested in data and stuff and I feel like it will contribute to this wonderful discussion (and it's a slow time at work at the moment). I'm not going to be looking at class rankings or anything, but rather the "average talent level" on each team according to each players rating from the 247 composite. For players not rated in the 247 composite (applies to Adonis De La Rosa and Matic Vesel for us), I will assign a rating of .75, as that's about the lowest I've ever seen assigned on 247, and having an unranked player on scholarship on your team should negatively affect your score. I am also including any scholarship player that was redshirted/suspended etc. in that seasons score for simplicity's sake, since I'm not sure I can 100% accurately get that right for every B1G team (this means Tracy Abrams appears on 6 teams.

I've already assembled these "talent scores" for each of the past 10 years of Illinois Basketball. Here's how they rank by 247 talent level, with that seasons finishing position by wins in conference noted next to it (these are not the rank in talent within the conference, as I have yet to do the rest of the programs)

Rk Year AVG Conference Finish and Record
1. 2010-2011 .9455 Finished 4th in conference (9-9)
2. 2011-2012 .9376 Finished 9th in conference (6-12)
3. 2014-2015 .9205 Finished 7th in conference (9-9)
4. 2012-2013 .9200 Finished 7th in conference (8-10)
5. 2015-2016 .9193 Finished 12th in conference (5-13)
6. 2016-2017 .9181 Finished 9th in conference (8-10)
7. 2009-2010 .9116 Finished 5th in conference (10-8)
8. 2013-2014 .9022 Finished 8th in conference (7-11)
9. 2018-2019 .8836 Finished ?? in conference
10. 2017-2018 .8803 Finished 11th in conference (4-14)

I figure posting this now should drive some conversation for the time being. I'll probably create a new thread when I have the full conference results.

 

[Second and Chalmers]

So I decided that I'm going to do this between now and this weekend for the past 10 seasons, just because I'm interested in data and stuff and I feel like it will contribute to this wonderful discussion (and it's a slow time at work at the moment). I'm not going to be looking at class rankings or anything, but rather the "average talent level" on each team according to each players rating from the 247 composite. For players not rated in the 247 composite (applies to Adonis De La Rosa and Matic Vesel for us), I will assign a rating of .75, as that's about the lowest I've ever seen assigned on 247, and having an unranked player on scholarship on your team should negatively affect your score. I am also including any scholarship player that was redshirted/suspended etc. in that seasons score for simplicity's sake, since I'm not sure I can 100% accurately get that right for every B1G team (this means Tracy Abrams appears on 6 teams.

I've already assembled these "talent scores" for each of the past 10 years of Illinois Basketball. Here's how they rank by 247 talent level, with that seasons finishing position by wins in conference noted next to it (these are not the rank in talent within the conference, as I have yet to do the rest of the programs)

Rk Year AVG Conference Finish and Record
1. 2010-2011 .9455 Finished 4th in conference (9-9)
2. 2011-2012 .9376 Finished 9th in conference (6-12)
3. 2014-2015 .9205 Finished 7th in conference (9-9)
4. 2012-2013 .9200 Finished 7th in conference (8-10)
5. 2015-2016 .9193 Finished 12th in conference (5-13)
6. 2016-2017 .9181 Finished 9th in conference (8-10)
7. 2009-2010 .9116 Finished 5th in conference (10-8)
8. 2013-2014 .9022 Finished 8th in conference (7-11)
9. 2018-2019 .8836 Finished ?? in conference
10. 2017-2018 .8803 Finished 11th in conference (4-14)

I figure posting this now should drive some conversation for the time being. I'll probably create a new thread when I have the full conference results.

Awesome awesome stuff, can I ask for 08-09 to be added? I'm guessing that would be the least talented team of the 11. It was certainly the best.

 

[Berg88]

So I decided that I'm going to do this between now and this weekend for the past 10 seasons, just because I'm interested in data and stuff and I feel like it will contribute to this wonderful discussion (and it's a slow time at work at the moment). I'm not going to be looking at class rankings or anything, but rather the "average talent level" on each team according to each players rating from the 247 composite. For players not rated in the 247 composite (applies to Adonis De La Rosa and Matic Vesel for us), I will assign a rating of .75, as that's about the lowest I've ever seen assigned on 247, and having an unranked player on scholarship on your team should negatively affect your score. I am also including any scholarship player that was redshirted/suspended etc. in that seasons score for simplicity's sake, since I'm not sure I can 100% accurately get that right for every B1G team (this means Tracy Abrams appears on 6 teams.

I've already assembled these "talent scores" for each of the past 10 years of Illinois Basketball. Here's how they rank by 247 talent level, with that seasons finishing position by wins in conference noted next to it (these are not the rank in talent within the conference, as I have yet to do the rest of the programs)

Rk Year AVG Conference Finish and Record
1. 2010-2011 .9455 Finished 4th in conference (9-9)
2. 2011-2012 .9376 Finished 9th in conference (6-12)
3. 2014-2015 .9205 Finished 7th in conference (9-9)
4. 2012-2013 .9200 Finished 7th in conference (8-10)
5. 2015-2016 .9193 Finished 12th in conference (5-13)
6. 2016-2017 .9181 Finished 9th in conference (8-10)
7. 2009-2010 .9116 Finished 5th in conference (10-8)
8. 2013-2014 .9022 Finished 8th in conference (7-11)
9. 2018-2019 .8836 Finished ?? in conference
10. 2017-2018 .8803 Finished 11th in conference (4-14)

I figure posting this now should drive some conversation for the time being. I'll probably create a new thread when I have the full conference results.

It amazes me how shocked I still am to see the last 10 years of futility spell out like this. 1 (hopefully 2...) season over .500 in the last 10 years. :hurl:

 

[soupy17]

Awesome awesome stuff, can I ask for 08-09 to be added? I'm guessing that would be the least talented team of the 11. It was certainly the best.

Only because you asked so nicely. Slot in at 10th in talent level. Also added notes for where we tied for a conference place.

Rk Year AVG Conference Finish and Record
1. 2010-2011 .9455 Finished 4th in conference (9-9)
2. 2011-2012 .9376 Finished 9th in conference (6-12)
3. 2014-2015 .9205 Finished T-7th in conference (9-9)
4. 2012-2013 .9200 Finished T-7th in conference (8-10)
5. 2015-2016 .9193 Finished 12th in conference (5-13)
6. 2016-2017 .9181 Finished 9th in conference (8-10)
7. 2009-2010 .9116 Finished 5th in conference (10-8)
8. 2013-2014 .9022 Finished T-8th in conference (7-11)
9. 2018-2019 .8836 Finished ?? in conference
10. 2008-2009 .8834 Finished T-2nd in converence (11-7)
11. 2017-2018 .8803 Finished T-11th in conference (4-14)

 

[bluemountain]

Illinois owned Chicago in the 1980s. Really owned the entire state but had a strong foothold in Chicago. Is that repeatable in today's recruiting climate? I think recruiting back then, was far more regional and thus it was easier to protect your home turf that it is today. Today, you gotta compete against everybody in the country if there's a Parker, Okafor, Alexander, Davis, Rose type player in Chicago.

The pride in the state school between the 1980s, and today isn't even close. Illinois was revered in the 1980s as a destination place. You had the IHSA finals in Champaign, you had strong connections to Simeon, King, Westinghouse. Even the student population itself was mainly Illinois kids, and that created lot of state pride. Lot of enthusiasm for "staying home" and producing for the state school. Today, you got 25% of undergrads that are foreign students (not just out of state). And the IHSA finals aren't even in Champaign anymore. That connection to Chicago, and even to the entire state just isn't there anymore (relative the 80s). I think that's what the school administration wants, which I think hurts the athletic dept.

Illinois has never owned the state or Chicago in recruiting. We basically had 2 great classes - the Douglass/Winters/Altenberger class and the Anderson/Gill/Bardo class with a few other players mixed in. Lots of great Illinois talent left the state back then, just like it does today

 

[Second and Chalmers]

The pride in the state school between the 1980s, and today isn't even close. Illinois was revered in the 1980s as a destination place. You had the IHSA finals in Champaign, you had strong connections to Simeon, King, Westinghouse. Even the student population itself was mainly Illinois kids, and that created lot of state pride. Lot of enthusiasm for "staying home" and producing for the state school.

Inseparable from that, IMO, was the fact that Kansas and Duke and Kentucky games weren't regularly on your TV every night. Nor were they being discussed on Sportscenter, or later Twitter, as they happened. Everything about life back then was more locally-focused.

 

[ILL in IA]

I tried to keep up with this, so forgive me if I bring up something discussed already. But one thing I believe may be overlooked when discussing the talent levels of the teams and overachieving, and underachieving, is an imbalance of talent on the roster, and how thin we have been at guard post-2008. And by guard, I mean primary ball handlers. At a quick glance, the last time we went 2 deep a pg without a significant drop off from starter to backup would be the backcourt of Frazier and McCamey in 08. You have to have some elite talent 2-5 to win consistently without a good PG.

And I know the PG situation has been discussed for a long time. But looking this over again further removed made it stand out so much more.

 

[ILL in IA]

Illinois has never owned the state or Chicago in recruiting. We basically had 2 great classes - the Douglass/Winters/Altenberger class and the Anderson/Gill/Bardo class with a few other players mixed in. Lots of great Illinois talent left the state back then, just like it does today

What stands out the most to me from this, is that we don't need a class with four or five players that are all 4* talent. (sure that helps jumpstart the rebuild to the program we were) But we need to start stacking classes that have good talent every single year. 2 or 3 years from now that starts to be a great roster. Ayo and Jones are the start. 1 good one builds on that this year. (I want more than 1 for the record)

 

[sacraig]

2000-2006 talent levels happened because of very lucky circumstances. There was nothing "repeatable" about those things. Another coach can't land 3 McDonald's All Americans from Central IL, because there aren't 3 McDAA from Central IL to even recruit.

Well if your requirement for landing that level of talent is that we have to have 3 McDAAs from Central, IL, then sure, that probably isn't likely to happen or be possible very frequently. However, where on Earth are you getting your numbers. In 2000-20006, we had exactly one McDAA, and his name was Dee Brown and he was from Maywood. I think it is perfectly reasonable that we, as a program, could land one McDAA every 6 years.

We did land 3 of them from Central Illinois in '97, '98, and '99 (Griffin, Williams, and Cook), but they all played no role in the national runner-up team anyway, which goes to show you don't have to have burger boys as 60% of your starting 5 to have a very good team. We could sustain a level of talent that lets us compete nationally without 3 McDAAs on a given team. We could do it with none. We need more talent than we have had in previous years, but we don't need Kentucky-level talent.

 

[Obelix]

Inseparable from that, IMO, was the fact that Kansas and Duke and Kentucky games weren't regularly on your TV every night. Nor were they being discussed on Sportscenter, or later Twitter, as they happened. Everything about life back then was more locally-focused.

Good point, but relatively speaking Kansas and Kentucky (and to a lesser degree Duke) always had more media, and national TV presence even back then. The big difference IMO has been AAU, where most recruits spend a lot more time always traveling in their off season out of state on the Nike/Adidas/Under Armor national circuits and events constantly interacting with multiple coaches/recruiters than back in the 80s. But good recruiters adapt to different dynamics and there are always good recruiters in every era.