Should we be paying coaches 1.7 million to learn?
Isn't 4 years far enough "down the line?"
He probably deserves one more year, due to the injuries, but I am not optimistic.
Indiana 103, Illinois 69 POSTGAME
Should we be paying coaches 1.7 million to learn?
Isn't 4 years far enough "down the line?"
He probably deserves one more year, due to the injuries, but I am not optimistic.
illini80
- Forgottonia
I was never on the Groce bandwagon when there were calls in year 1 to lock up him long term because "he just gets it". I'm not on the fire him bandwagon now either. I don't know what the problem is with this team. They have enough talent to at least compete, even if they don't win a lot of games. I'm willing to give JG the rest of the season to show he has what it takes. I suspect (hope) they will right the ship and be competitive. If not, there may be no other choice but to start over again. It's getting old waiting 3-4 years to rebuild these programs constantly. Rick George please save us all.
Maybe part of the reason that his Brother didn't want to come here??? DMac didn't really have the best overall experience at UIUC...
cmrfrd7
- Olympia, WA
Nice goodbye soliloquy. You will be missed.
Listened to it on the radio - I was driving - because it's Illinois basketball. The point stands, though: the real tournament, the NCAA Tournament, is the only one that matters or counts for anything here. That's the bar. Anything less is a failure.
Deleted member 586966
D
Guest
Or maybe Purdue's guards' inability to create off the dribble or shoot the ball very effectively happened to matchup well with our extremely small lineup. Did just enough to keep their bigs in check.
Many here talk in terms of the NCAA tournament as the goal. If you contend for the regular season conference title, tournament season will take care of itself. Finishing in the top 4-5 in conference should be the bar. I'd be happy with above .500 in the B1G as a near term goal.
Ditto^^^ And honestly, asking a coach to consistently go above .500 in conference play shouldn't be that much to ask. Just like it isn't much to ask for a football coach to make a bowl game each year (it could be the toilet bowl for all I care).
Soxfreak64
- Bloomington
They have talent. They have a high scoring SG who can stroke it, a go-to Malcolm type guy who does it all on offense, and a B1G PG.
They defend with tenacity, even though they aren't a super defensive team.
It also helps to start your run with Minny & Rutgers. Hopefully we can do the same here in the next few weeks.
Every coach should be above .500 in conference play every year, just like all children should be above average. It's just that pesky problem with mathematics....
POTD. UI b-ball should be making the Dance roughly on average 8 or 9 times out of 10 each decade based on our history of the last 33-34 years (modern era). If it starts settling for NIT berths as successful seasons more often than once or twice per decade, that would be a step backward.
This brings up an interesting question:
If you can pretend you are an outside analyst who doesn't care about any Big Ten teams, which teams do you think Illinois *should* outperform?
Which teams, from a non-Illini perspective, *should* be better than Illinois?
I'll give it a shot:
Should be better:
Ohio State (biggest athletic budget in the conference)
Michigan State (best program in the Big Ten since 2000, I think)
Indiana (borderline blue blood)
Michigan (has great basketball and football history)
Not Sure:
Wisconsin (hasn't finished below 4th in forever, just a great consistent program. Their status remains TBD without Bo)
Maryland (revived program with a sort of recent national championship)
Should be worse:
Rutgers (they are dumb)
Penn State (strong tradition of bad)
Minnesota (too cold)
Iowa (not a strong home recruiting base, and it overlaps with Kansas)
Purdue (second fiddle team in Indiana. Granted, they have a lot of wins and some recent good teams, but still)
Northwestern (facilities and admissions standards hold them back. If they invested in upgrading facilities, I would be more concerned about their potential)
Nebraska (dangerous program. The school has a history of valuing athletics, and they have new facilities and a decent coach. But we have more home-court recruiting advantages)
I think you summed this up pretty well. This would put us in the top 7 consistently. This is a place I could get on board with as long as we outperformed 7th place pretty regularly. To expect us to be among the top 3-4 regularly is probably unrealistic. The league is too tough.
Who said anything about a first-round loss?A first-round loss in the NCAA tournament is much better than your stated definition of postseason success, which you wrote was getting to the NIT. Getting to the NIT should never be considered a sign of success for UI.
In the 80s, 90s and 2000s, UI made the Dance eight times in the 80s, six times in the 90s and nine times in the 2000s. Of those 23 trips in 30 years (nearly 80 percent of its seasons in the Dance), UI made at least the second round 16 times and at least the Sweet 16 eight times.
That should be UI's benchmark for postseason success going forward, not being satisfied with 2-3 NIT trips for every one trip to the Dance.
+1. Finishing fifth to seventh consistently means we'll have teams that regularly make the Dance, though I'd add that some forays into the top 4 of the B1G should be expected of this program considering we tied or shared the title in five out of eight seasons from 98-05. That's unrealistic now, but challenging for the league title 2-3 times per decade isn't IMO.
In addition, there are no current true Blue bloods in the B1G, Indiana was once a blue blood, but not anymore. There is no program that you can say they should be consistently better, except Michigan State just because of Izzo.
I think we are on the same page here :thumb:
I think OSU and UM *should* be better than Illinois, just by virtue of the general success and support around their athletic departments as a whole.
Now, this doesn't mean we can't be a better program, it just means that if I was to bet on which program would be better 30 years from now, I'd bet on UM or OSU.
And maybe IU, too, because of their history as a blue blood, even though it's been a long while since they were at that level.
Tevo
- Wilmette, IL
Interestingly, and perhaps counter-intuitively, over the past 8 seasons (from 07-08 to 14-15), only 43% of Big Ten teams have finished over .500. And the Illini only did it twice in those 8 seasons (08-09 and 09-10). We've been bad for a long time, and we have some top notch coaches and programs to contend with. Expecting the Illini to consistently be above .500 is actually asking for more than most Big Ten schools achieve. Still, that's the nature of the thing.
To me, the record will take care of itself once we start playing good basketball. I'm not as worried about the record, right now, as I am about our complete lack of cohesion on defense and disjointed, one-on-one offense (which both depend on recruiting). If we were losing close games to good teams it would be one thing...
Not sure about that. I think your response has been greatly influenced by the decline of our program in the last 10 years. You would not have conceded OSU and UM being better 30 years from now if you were asked the same question in 1999-2005, or even earlier. Since the mid-80s it looked like Illinois had a bright future and an external factor (probation) got us down. The late 90s and early 2000s were just validation that once we had recovered from the effects of probation, we were destined for a bright future again.
In the last 10 years, we have shot ourselves (and the program) in the foot. Clear mismanagement of administration/coaching, endogenous factors that have returned our program to pre-80s state.
You could be right.
This makes me wonder: starting with the Flyin' Illini, how many years has Illinois been a top-4 or 5 program in the conference vs. not?
Is the past decade an anomaly, or was 1999-2005 the anomaly?
I believe we need to start looking at data a little earlier, because Henson did indeed start the ascend earlier in the 80s. Starting in 1982-83, we finished in the top 4 in 9 consecutive years until probation started to take effect in 1991-92 (first time we finished 8th - out of top 4). A clear inflection point. Henson could not recover recruiting-wise. Still managed some good teams finishing 3rd in 1992-93 and 4th in 1993-94, but the 1994-95 (5th) and 1995-96 (9th) seasons indicated that the staff could not fully recover. It was really the effect of probation.
Since Lon took over in 1996, we only finished below 4th just once in the next 11 years (in 1998-99 when we finished deal last - reloading year).
So if you exclude the probation/post probation effect that cost Henson his job, we have really brought the program down to pre-1882 years, to be exact more towards the late 1970s.
Last edited:
pre-1982...