Bruce Pearl and Auburn is not a good example. It just proves that recruiting is a necessary but not sufficient condition. I really dislike Pearl, but he is a strong recruiter and what he is doing at Auburn is a result of recruiting over a period of years, he actually drastically elevated recruiting once he got to Auburn. What Pearl did at Auburn just proves that even with very strong recruiting, it may still take a few years to really have a very good team. So all that proves is that even IF we drastically turn it around in recruiting in the future and start recruiting like Pearl, it may still take a few more years to have a really good team.
Illini Basketball 2018-2019
- Status
Bruce Pearl and Auburn is not a good example. It just proves that recruiting is a necessary but not sufficient condition. I really dislike Pearl, but he is a strong recruiter and what he is doing at Auburn is a result of recruiting over a period of years, he actually drastically elevated recruiting once he got to Auburn. What Pearl did at Auburn just proves that even with very strong recruiting, it may still take a few years to really have a very good team. So all that proves is that even IF we drastically turn it around in recruiting in the future and start recruiting like Pearl, it may still take a few more years to have a really good team.
Joel Goodson
- how was I to know, she was with the Russians too?
None. Needs to be pointed out that making the tournament was much more difficult back then.
Deleted member 173571
D
Guest
He is a good recruiter because he plays the game....strong proof of that.
Basketball dynamics were a lot different back then but this is not a good example, as Pearl was not a good example either. First, back then it was only 32 teams making the NCAA tournament, later going to 40. So it was a lot more difficult to make the NCAA tournament and the NIT. Second, Henson started the ascend of the program compared to what he inherited right off the bat. He did not bring the program down to the bottom first. Brad Underwood inherited a program that was pretty much an NIT program during previous regime and we are currently below that level. That did not happen with Henson. Finally, Henson did it with recruiting, and all that proves (as with the Pearl example) that even IF we drastically turn it around in recruiting, it might still take a few years from that point.
To be fair, just because the team was a NIT team under Groce, that doesn't mean that if we kept Groce that we were guaranteed to remain a NIT team. It's definitely possible that Underwood is solely to blame for taking a NIT team to a non-NIT team. But it's also possible that the problems that were started under Groce finally came to a head after he was let go. My sole opinion is that it is too early to tell whether Underwood is the right coach or not. He could not be. But he also could be. The sample size is too small in my opinion, and I do not agree that that is a weak argument.
3 point girl
- texas
Maybe he is & maybe he isnt the next Jason Kidd- I dont know. There arent many Jason Kidds out there, if any. What is true is that he is leading a SEC team in scoring & that is something I didnt expect based on his performance at Illinois. People here say that he is scoring because he makes wide open shots. Imagine how many games we would have won the last 5 years if our players made wide open shots.
Nothing is guaranteed in basketball, it is not guaranteed that any team will make the tournament next year. It is also not guaranteed that a Groce team with Tilmon would not have made the NCAA tournament either. Many things could happen. But the reason for the change was not that we were not an NIT program, or we were not projected to be an NIT team, it was that making the NIT was not acceptable. The expectation was to take a steady NIT program and take make it a consistent NCAA program and that does not necessitate driving the program to the bottom first before supposedly starting some miraculous ascend.
I don't prescribe to the often posted hypothesis that had coach X or Y stayed, we would have been way below of where we were with the same coach during his UI tenure, and had be stayed he would have done even worse than current coach who is doing well below the previous coach's tenure. That is a "make believe", let me feel good about my current misery attitude, which is nonsense.
You evaluate coaches based on what they actually do at UI.
I agree with all that. I'm just saying that it's too early to tell if Underwood drove the program to the ground, or if that was already in the works because of Groce. Sure the evidence currently does not look good for Underwood. But it is a small sample size. Maybe he turns it around. Maybe he doesn't.
Personally, I don't think that is nonsense. But to each his/her own.
I did not say "ground" because that expression has more negative longer term connotations. The point is not the long term effect, that is to be determined. The point is that if you are a steady NIT team during the previous tenure, there is no rule that says that you have to go to the bottom of the B1G first before you start some supposedly miraculous ascend. Why? And I say "supposedly miraculous ascend" because that hope is not really based on much of what we have seen so far. I would understand if recruiting was going very well, and there were times in UI history (e.g., after Kruger's low season) that it was indeed happening (we were bringing in 3 McD AAs) to complement some of our existing and very promising elements. But recruiting is not going well, and that talent infusion is definitely not happening right now.
You're right. I read "ground" in my mind. I apologize for that. And yes, there is no rule that you have to go to the bottom before you ascend, but just because things don't look good now, does not mean that that cannot change.
Recruiting hasn't been great so far, but it's been limited sample size. The record does not look good, but again, relatively small sample size. Things could change quickly for the better (or worse). Everyone has mentioned that basketball can be a very quick turnaround. So maybe we have just been unlucky so far, and once we get back to "normal luck," we will start to see that turnaround. Maybe we won't and it has nothing to do with luck. But I don't know that it will get better yet, and you don't know that won't yet, either.
This whole long discussion started with people not understanding how some posters can be hopeful based on the current results. And I just want to end my entire input on this is that my hope is not based on the current results. But rather that there are still so many unknowns that I have decided to remain hopeful that those unknowns will change for the better. That does not mean that I am oblivious to the current results not looking good, but rather that I'm not ready to throw in the towel already. If that makes me unrealistic, then fine. I really don't care. But I think that is way off the mark. Furthermore, I don't believe people should be chastised for choosing to remain hopeful.
I think I answered the same yesterday, what you are saying is practically that you do not think we are on the right track, yet you have hope that the staff will turn it around. That is not different to what I am saying, I have no disagreement with that, more with some opinions that we currently are on the right track. Sure if recruiting drastically changes (as I hope too), there will be something to base optimism, but it has to happen first. And while basketball turnarounds can be quicker than football, I disagree on the timing. Unless you can bring freshman talent like Duke, Kentucky, it will take more time from the point that talent gets on campus, as even examples like Pearl/Auburn prove.
Deleted member 746094
D
Guest
Thanks for the stats Steelyunk. The OPP FG% and # of Fouls tell me two different things with the same outcome.
- When we stop the other team from getting a lay-up, we are having to foul to do so.
- When we don’t foul the other team, we are giving up a lay-up or a wide open shot.
I really like BU, but this defense isn’t working so far in his tenure. By the time he gets the right players on the roster to play defense in his scheme successfully it may be another coach coaching them.
- When we stop the other team from getting a lay-up, we are having to foul to do so.
- When we don’t foul the other team, we are giving up a lay-up or a wide open shot.
I really like BU, but this defense isn’t working so far in his tenure. By the time he gets the right players on the roster to play defense in his scheme successfully it may be another coach coaching them.
Perhaps this gimmick defense only works against bad competition (which is why he did a good job at SFA with it).
What those stats don't tell you is how good the opponents are. In any case, we had a 3 in the air with maybe 10 secs left to take the lead v the #1 Zags, another that rimmed out as time expired at ND that would've won the game and lost a very close game without our best player v G'Town.
The higher the number the better...right?
Yep, just like golf.
Not enough. Building a program from scratch normally takes time & today's fan bases aren't very generous with the amount of time they will allow before calling for the coach's head. It's a mob mentality that settles in and I have seen it happen time and again with Illinois. Patience is not an attribute most fans these days possess, unfortunately.
Url please. Thanks
Steelyunk
- Tobacco Road
https://www.ncaa.com/stats/basketball-men/d1/current/team/149
We all know we're easy to score on. I was amazed that there are few D1 teams as easy to score on.
We all know we foul too much. I was amazed that there are few D1 teams that foul as much. I mean - out of 351!
Steelyunk
- Tobacco Road
And we're right in the middle of the pack (167) in field goal% on offense.
I've had this exact thought multiple times (even when BU was at OSU). His best production there even came once be dialed it back into a more traditional set.
Now, BU isn't running some crazy innovative defense that's never been run at a high level, but at some point the question arises: if it's such an effective defense, why don't more high majors run it? I think it's a deeper question than that, but still, thoughts to ponder.
Tacomallini
- Washington State
I think we can all agree that there's at least one Jason Kidd out there.
- Status