Missouri 79, Illinois 63 POSTGAME

I mean Alan in pretty clearly gone, right? Did you guys see what his mother put on twitter? Basically saying that she left Underwood to take care of her son but he isn't... That is a pretty harsh, public statement to come back on.
So let's just look at facts.

Underwood comes in with very impressive numbers at SFA & 1 year at OSU. He secures a commitment from Illinois Mr. Basketball Mark Smith within weeks of being hired. Looses Tillmon and Pickett. Trent & Damonte stay (thankfully!)

Year one overall, very rough, despite many close losses. Not truly his recruits, mostly Groce, so BU gets a total pass.

Word begins to spread quickly about how unhappy Mark and his family are and announces transfer following the season, followed by almost a complete overhaul of the roster.

Year two, impressive recruits (essentially POY from NY), considering how many BU missed on early. Although, this recruiting cycle appears to have really hurt any relationship with Simeon that may have existed (I know, not much.) Roster rebuilt. Yet, here we are, now it's Alan's family unhappy with BU and not the Smiths. I know it was written by O'Brien but the article in the Suntimes was not very flattering.

It is still so early in his tenure at Illinois but his lack of on the court success followed by what appears to be a lack of off the court relationships looks to be very worrisome! Please figure this out Brad, I don't want to see us have to start over again!
 
When he was hired, no one was calling it a buyout. There was talk that he'd be so successful that other teams would poach us the way we poached OSU. If they did, they'd have to pay us $15.25M in year one, $12.4M in year two, etc. That huge price tag was entirely defensive. With the benefit of hindsight, it appears no one is going to hire BU away anytime soon. So now it is just a buyout that must be paid if we want to fire him.
 
Likes: pruman91
When he was hired, no one was calling it a buyout. There was talk that he'd be so successful that other teams would poach us the way we poached OSU. If they did, they'd have to pay us $15.25M in year one, $12.4M in year two, etc. That huge price tag was entirely defensive. With the benefit of hindsight, it appears no one is going to hire BU away anytime soon. So now it is just a buyout that must be paid if we want to fire him.
It’s another sign of Whitman’s ego getting the best of him. Offering a golden parachute to football and basketball coaches to prevent a speculatory poaching reeks of arrogance. It’s a horrible decision, especially given that Lovie, despite his rep, was completely unproven as a college head coach: and Underwood was unproven at a sustained high major level.
 
Of course we overpaid. No doubt about that. Not only was he a bad fit, but BU's buyout is ridiculous high. His market value was $1M salary with a $3M buyout at OSU just a year ago. The salary tripled (which is less of an issue) but his buyout is $15.25M first year(!), $12.4M second year, etc. It is an astronomical buyout, despite not being a good fit. In comparison, Chris Mack at Louisville starts at $6M and drops $500K every year! We gave BU an absolutely ridiculous buyout, one of the best in the industry. This contract and buyout lock you in on a bad decision no matter how bad things turn out, and right now we are on track to have the worst 2-yr period since 1973-75 when Harv Schmidt and Gene Bartow were the coaches. We are stuck!
We were stuck anyway. Who takes this job if Underwood gets fired after this season?

It’s not even worth engaging on this stuff anymore. People have gotten so sour on the program that context has completely been abandoned. It’s almost more unpleasant than what’s happening on the court.
 
Likes: the national
Thanks for providing this, my dude.

The DBPM (Defense Box Plus/Minus) data you linked confirms what I was suggesting before: that very low playing time (and therefore less possessions, which is what OBPM and DBPM are measured against) distorts and misrepresents Tyler Underwood's contributions.

Tyler has played less, seen his most playing time against the weakest level of competition we've faced, poached a steal here or there (half of his steals, 2/4, have come against ETSU and Evansville), and this is entirely what is responsible for his inflated DBPM. He is averaging 3.8 steals per 40 minutes, and this is distorting the mathematics of his defensive advanced states calculations.

If we took Tyler's DBPM at face value, and mute all context (as you did), what a +5.1 DBPM implies is that Tyler Underwood is one of the two most efficient defensive players on the team.

Interestingly, Samba Kane has a DBPM of +6.3, which results from the same statistical circumstances that affect Tyler's advanced stats: less minutes equals less possessions, wherein an extra steal or block here or there will spike the mess out of a player's advanced stats. Samba is averaging 4.1 blocks per 40 minutes.

Damonte Williams, who is clearly a more skilled on ball defender, and who shows *visible* understanding/anticipation of defensive principles, has a DBPM of +3.5.

Aaron Jordan - DBPM of +2.7
Ayo Dosunmu - DBPM of +1.7
Andres Feliz - DBPM of +1.4
Kipper - DBPM of +0.6
Trent Frazier - DBPM of -0.2

So, Alan Griffin's DBPM of +2.0 ranks among the top 3 of any Illini guard.


* * * * *​


After digging into these numbers, it made me wonder if Coach Underwood's answer to the press, "Tyler is way ahead defensively", was a prepared statement in anticipation of handling the nepotism question/implication. The advanced stats/DPBM is his alibi. Like a politician, which a professional or collegiate coach kind of is, Coach knows that such a statement would be enough to satisfy those who don't want to believe that he might be playing his son for selfish reasons - a piece of superficial data that would sufficiently pacify those who could not or would not see with their own eyes that young Underwood is a liability on the court. If Coach Underwood is truly invested in understanding advanced stats, he will know more clearly than either you or I that Tyler's DBPM is one of the least informative statistics of any player on the team, given the context.

The hardest thing for anyone - and especially a man - to do is question his own perspectives/worldview. Everyday we see in the loud theater of American politics what happens when people are unable to consider opposing viewpoints. But if these exchanges have any value, it is to offer us meaningful challenges to our own beliefs. You (and others) believe that there is a sincere reason, one beneficial to the team, that Tyler Underwood is getting minutes when he is, and you offered the advanced stats as a logical basis for your beliefs. You are clearly an intelligent person, and the construction of your argument was intelligent. But now that the basis of your argument has been comprehensively neutralized, providing evidence that your thinking on the issue was flawed, will you question other facets of your beliefs, such as this matter being a bigger deal than you were previously willing to acknowledge?

Happy Holidays,

- 0n3
 
When he was hired, no one was calling it a buyout. There was talk that he'd be so successful that other teams would poach us the way we poached OSU. If they did, they'd have to pay us $15.25M in year one, $12.4M in year two, etc. That huge price tag was entirely defensive. With the benefit of hindsight, it appears no one is going to hire BU away anytime soon. So now it is just a buyout that must be paid if we want to fire him.
Well, the vast majority of fans were also blinded by optimism thinking we were making the NCAA last year and we finished one of our worst seasons in 20+ years. Similarly, the vast majority of fans do not pay attention to buyouts because when a coaching change is made, it is hard for a fan to think that it is a bad decision and things will go downhill. Even when Self was fired, there was a strong anti-Self sentiment with posters talking about how he was going to fail at KU and Weber was going to be a fantastic coach who will stay here forever.

That is why you need strong management, decision makers, and ADs, who hopefully can make better decisions than the ones we have made in the past. Because the reason for Illinois' fall has been bad administrative and coaching decisions, not the fans, as delusionally optimistic fans can be at times.
 
We were stuck anyway. Who takes this job if Underwood gets fired after this season?

It’s not even worth engaging on this stuff anymore. People have gotten so sour on the program that context has completely been abandoned. It’s almost more unpleasant than what’s happening on the court.
This has become as bad as the FB threads. So many calling for the coaches head. Fire everyone after 2 and a half seasons. Now in BB, fire the coach after just 2 years... Who will take a job knowing that with each hire, the window to achieve success keeps getting shorter.... they'll all be afraid of being fired after their first loss... And sadly, reading these comments, that looks like the direction the majority wants...
 
This has become as bad as the FB threads. So many calling for the coaches head. Fire everyone after 2 and a half seasons. Now in BB, fire the coach after just 2 years... Who will take a job knowing that with each hire, the window to achieve success keeps getting shorter.... they'll all be afraid of being fired after their first loss... And sadly, reading these comments, that looks like the direction the majority wants...
You need to pay better attention because I have clearly said on many posts that there is absolutely no way Illinois is making a change. I have argued actually with people who believe there is even a wild wild chance. But just because you have negotiated a terrible contract that locks you in long term (not just this year), and just because it is almost impossible to make a change for PR reasons (which IMO is absolutely true), that does not mean that you have made a good coaching choice on someone who is a good "fit" or that the contract/buyout you have given the aforementioned coach is a justifiably good contract (which is what some posters are arguing). Both of them were bad decisions that are hard to reverse, both from a financial perspective (exposure) AND PR. We are stuck!
 
Last edited:
I suppose if you accept the idea that we are going to give a coach four years no matter what, then the huge buyouts for years 1-3 don't matter very much. Is the buyout $12,000,000? Not gonna fire him. Is the buyout $12.00? Still not gonna fire the guy after year two.

As for me, I choose to believe the team's biggest flaw is that it is extremely young. If these guys stick around through BUs fourth term at the helm, they are going to be a pretty good team. I honestly believe that. It's just that I'm having a harder and harder time believing they all stick around.
 
The Head Coaching job has been offered to Brad Stevens, Dana Altman, ShaKa Smart, many others that I have since forgotten or blocked out. The point is Illinois Basketball has been treated like an undesirable deadend job for years and no one or almost no one wants to come here and before that it was a stepping stone better jobs. I think we are stuck with Coach Underwood good or bad. Clearly we have less talent than Missouri, but out coached, no. Just out played, out executed looking like a Deer in the headlights. Coach Underwood is responsible for not playing other players before his son. We needed scoring and basket protection, enter Alan and Samba. Yes release Trivian, play everyone and stop dribbling so darn much, find some offensive flow. I want to not watch them, but do anyway thinking we will win, yes I am a ticked off rabid Illini fan. Watching the Volleyball team only made me crave winning and dominating even more. Whitman was spot on there, but it wasn't completely in the toliet like baskerball and football. It is what it is, watch don't watch, complain or justify. Fight or flee and blah, blah, blah. I am an Illini, forever, good or bad.
 
I suppose if you accept the idea that we are going to give a coach four years no matter what, then the huge buyouts for years 1-3 don't matter very much. Is the buyout $12,000,000? Not gonna fire him. Is the buyout $12.00? Still not gonna fire the guy after year two
The buyout is quite severe even beyond this year. It started at $15+ million in first year, and it drops about $3M in each of the subsequent years. So $9.45M after year 3 or even $6.4M after year 4 etc. is no small change considering that unless you find a "free agent," you'd have to add the buyout of the coach you will hire when this time comes. It does affect the ability to make the next hire. It is not that money at UI grows on trees.

For the people who are still arguing over how good or solid that decision was, you can also consider John Beilein's newly negotiated contract and buyout this summer (July 2018), even AFTER all the great success he has had at Michigan. Even with their resources, Michigan still seems to make solid decisions.

As noted, Beilein's salary and retirement contribution remain unchanged, while the buyout amount remains relatively low. If Michigan chooses to terminate Beilein without cause during the 2018-19 season, it will be required to pay him $3 million.

That amount drops to $2 million during the 2019-20 season, $1.5 million during the 2020-21 season, $1 million during the 2021-22 season and $500,000 during the 2022-23 season.

https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2018/07/john_beileins_new_contract_at.html
 
The buyout is quite severe even beyond this year. It started at $15+ million in first year, and it drops about $3M in each of the subsequent years. So $9.45M after year 3 or even $6.4M after year 4 etc. is no small change considering that unless you find a "free agent," you'd have to add the buyout of the coach you will hire when this time comes.
I thought it was $6.4M during year four; and that it basically drops by $3 million after each season of his five year contract. But if I'm wrong it won't be my only mistake today.
 
The buyout is quite severe even beyond this year. It started at $15+ million in first year, and it drops about $3M in each of the subsequent years. So $9.45M after year 3 or even $6.4M after year 4 etc. is no small change considering that unless you find a "free agent," you'd have to add the buyout of the coach you will hire when this time comes. It does affect the ability to make the next hire. It is not that money at UI grows on trees.

For the people who are still arguing over how good or solid that decision was, you can also consider John Beilein's newly negotiated contract and buyout this summer (July 2018), even AFTER all the great success he has had at Michigan. Even with their resources, Michigan still seems to make solid decisions.
Beilein had all of the leverage in that discussion and the buyout in that case is protecting the university from his departure (to the NBA, presumably). It’s a coach-friendly deal term in his case.
 
Likes: KevinC
The Head Coaching job has been offered to Brad Stevens, Dana Altman, ShaKa Smart, many others that I have since forgotten or blocked out.
Just a small clarification, Dana Altman has been to Oregon since 2010, so we did not try to poach him from Oregon. Dana Altman was approached as one of the candidates in 2003 when he was at Creighton and Illinois was in great shape and much better job than Creighton (still is a better job). Guenther decided on Weber over Altman, Matta, and a few others.
 
Beilein had all of the leverage in that discussion and the buyout in that case is protecting the university from his departure (to the NBA, presumably). It’s a coach-friendly deal term in his case.
On the contrary, the buyout (as most buyouts) protect the coach and less the Universities. If someone does well at Michigan, or Illinois and the NBA or blue bloods come calling (as in the case of Kruger and Self at UI), the buyout is really not an issue. The higher ups care less about paying for a buyout for a coach they really want.

In the case of Beilein, the exact opposite of what you wrote is true and if you just read the article, it says so explicitly.

However, if Beilein decides to leave Michigan and gives "reasonable advance written notice," he will not owe the school anything.

https://www.mlive.com/wolverines/index.ssf/2018/07/john_beileins_new_contract_at.html
 
On the contrary, the buyout (as most buyouts) protect the coach and less the Universities. If someone does well at Michigan, or Illinois and the NBA or blue bloods come calling (as in the case of Kruger and Self at UI), the buyout is really not an issue. The higher ups care less about paying for a buyout for a coach they really want.

In the case of Beilein, the exact opposite of what you wrote is true and if you just read the article, it says so explicitly.
I guess you’re right on that. I still maintain that your understanding of the context around Underwood’s contract is off, and would say that his contract and Beilein’s extension have such different circumstances as to be essentially unrelated. But believe what you want to believe, as long as it makes you feel worse.
 
https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/alan-griffin-1.html

https://www.sports-reference.com/cbb/players/tyler-underwood-1.html

I’ll say again I disagree with BU’s approach. But 1) this is not nearly as big of an issue as 11 pages of this thread indicates and 2) its not as outfight illogical/nepotism as some make it out to be. We all know that brad underwood is a statistics guy. He follows the numbers. You may agree or disagree with that approach - but looking at the numbers - it’s not obvious that TU is clearly inferior to AG. Especially when it comes to defense (which I think is the primary issue with the team).
While admitting that I am a bigger fan of impact on games than of statistical analysis, I feel that AG would have impacted the game far more than TU. One can't say that TU's minutes were minor because if he had been impacting the game in the same manner that AG was capable of, he would have played a great many more minutes. To those saying that he shouldn't have been late for the shootaround, Ayo was late for the same shootaround yet started. People need to stop making that excuse for why AG didn't play until the final minutes. He wasn't suspended for the first 38 minutes. BU just decided that he wanted to give his son more of a shot (and maybe, possibly, improbably, deservedly so). Yes, AG could have meant a major difference in the game with his skillset.
 
Likes: TruIllini89
It’s another sign of Whitman’s ego getting the best of him. Offering a golden parachute to football and basketball coaches to prevent a speculatory poaching reeks of arrogance. It’s a horrible decision, especially given that Lovie, despite his rep, was completely unproven as a college head coach: and Underwood was unproven at a sustained high major level.
It's a rookie mistake. He'll learn. There are much better ways to set up a contract so you get the option of retaining, but the coach has a reasonable buyout that tapers appropriately. Whitman thought he had a high major coach, possibly a great one, and didn't want to get screwed later. He didn't really structure it to protect the University, if he made a mistake. And he was in a rough position IIRC. The market wasn't good for us, but was good for Underwood, being a proven coach. It may well be that the "proven" part at Oklahoma had to do with getting players through an assistant that played under the table, and SFA was inheriting a proven system. So far, he's failed here, but will get this season and 2 more before the buyout it tenable IMO. As much as I could criticize the results, I think Whitman isn't a guy to repeat his mistakes. That buyout will haunt Whitman enough that he'll think long and hard about how to not get caught in that position again. Lots of different things he could have done to work that better.

I think an awful lot of fans are done with Underwood. He didn't do anything last year, was given a pass, and hasn't shown much of anything this year. We're young and shouldn't be expected to be good, but there are a lot of warning signs that things aren't on a good trajectory. There's just too much failure here between the decline under Weber, Groce, and now Underwood. If there were any obvious signs of hope, I think people would hang on.

I tend to look at things a bit differently than most. I'm not happy with recruiting, but I would rather wait to see if the guys we have can run his system before making a big judgement there. I am very concerned that he's not landing the guys he's targeting at anywhere near the rate needed to be successful. There's no good explanation for that.

On the eye test, I'm not seeing us do the little things, which is culture and leadership IMO. The Tyler thing is blown way out of proportion. There was pressure to win this game, and he was seeing us get flustered --bringing in a reliable, but overall lessor player, who won't throw the ball away, might have gotten things back on track. The optics are terrible because A.) it didn't work, and B.) he did it twice. He needs to rethink that ASAP, and smooth it over. Like it or not, this is a throw away season. Build good habits, play for development, and let every game be a learning environment. Sad, but it is what it is and the buck stops with the HC.
 
Likes: the national