Illini Basketball 2026-2027

[the juiceman cometh]

Not to keep this going, but the 9th man stuff is, ti me, just peak message board silliness for two reasons. First, we're just coming off a Final Four run, and we did not really use a 9th man. Do we think that hurt us? In what way? Do we think that playing Petro more in the regular season leads us to more win? To beating UConn in the FF?

Second, do we really think any team plans ahead for who it's 9th man is going to be and we dropped the ball? 9th is so far down the rotation I have a hard time beliving coaches are out here recruiting guys specifically for the 9th man role. So why are we so worried none of these players can fill those minutes? We don't even know what we have yet. The staff assembled a ton of freshman talent, how can we be so sure none of them can handle 10 mpg or so? 2 of the last 4 champions have had a freshmen as their 9th men, and one of those, Florida's, was a 3 star prospect rated (by 247) lower than Zens, Williams, and Brown and given the same rating as Landon Davis.

 

[wc_illini]

Not to keep this going, but the 9th man stuff is, ti me, just peak message board silliness for two reasons. First, we're just coming off a Final Four run, and we did not really use a 9th man. Do we think that hurt us? In what way? Do we think that playing Petro more in the regular season leads us to more win? To beating UConn in the FF?

Second, do we really think any team plans ahead for who it's 9th man is going to be and we dropped the ball? 9th is so far down the rotation I have a hard time beliving coaches are out here recruiting guys specifically for the 9th man role. So why are we so worried none of these players can fill those minutes? We don't even know what we have yet. The staff assembled a ton of freshman talent, how can we be so sure none of them can handle 10 mpg or so? 2 of the last 4 champions have had a freshmen as their 9th men, and one of those, Florida's, was a 3 star prospect rated (by 247) lower than Zens, Williams, and Brown and given the same rating as Landon Davis.

Except I don't think any of the bolded things were said in this thread.

This started on Monday with promising reports about Williams, which got some people excited about hockey lines (which I agree is a stretch, but I took those comments as light hearted). Others just think the possible depth is good, even if just to keep the regulars fresh for the NCAAT without sacrificing some games. Then some people seemed to say that giving more than a few minutes to your 9th+ men is a bad idea or at least rare among top teams, so I showed that the last five champions all did just that.

 

[Emerson Bigguns]

It would be interesting to see whether these teams were so good because they played 9+ guys or if they played 9+ guys because they were so good. In other words, were they playing with such large leads throughout the year that they could afford to give the end of their bench more minutes?

Looking at Michigan from last year, in games decided by 10 or fewer points, their 9th+ man averaged just 7.6 minutes. So, in competitive contests they tightened their rotation significantly.

This is the real question. Good teams play in more blowouts, which creates more “garbage minutes” for guys on the bench. Additionally, analyzing per game averages is problematic, because the average is not affected by games guys never got into. If you add up per game averages it always adds up to more than 100.
If you simply look at MPG, you’d think Jakstys averaged 5 minutes a game last year. We know he didn’t. He only played in 9 of the 37, 48 minutes total.
To get the answer at the crux of this debate, you have to look at the percentage of minutes a guy got in games, while they were still in doubt. Rotations tighten up during tournament time, because there are fewer blowouts. You need your best guys out there for as long as they can handle.
If our starters do what we expect them to do, the bench will get minutes. They just won’t be high leverage minutes.

 

[wc_illini]

This is the real question. Good teams play in more blowouts, which creates more “garbage minutes” for guys on the bench. Additionally, analyzing per game averages is problematic, because the average is not affected by games guys never got into. If you add up per game averages it always adds up to more than 100.
If you simply look at MPG, you’d think Jakstys averaged 5 minutes a game last year. We know he didn’t. He only played in 9 of the 37, 48 minutes total.
To get the answer at the crux of this debate, you have to look at the percentage of minutes a guy got in games, while they were still in doubt. Rotations tighten up during tournament time, because there are fewer blowouts. You need your best guys out there for as long as they can handle.
If our starters do what we expect them to do, the bench will get minutes. They just won’t be high leverage minutes.

I accounted for games with zero minutes by dividing total season minutes by team games. For Michigan, I also looked at just games decided by 10pts or less, and they still got 9.8mpg from their "9th" man after accounting for lots of missed games (147 minutes in 9 games played plus 6 missed games). When I get time, I might do that for one of the other recent champs.

We all agree that rotations tighten up for the tournament. The question was whether depth in the regular season (not just garbage time) helps a team in the NCAAT.

 

[21ChampaignSt]

I accounted for games with zero minutes by dividing total season minutes by team games. For Michigan, I also looked at just games decided by 10pts or less, and they still got 9.8mpg from their "9th" man after accounting for lots of missed games (147 minutes in 9 games played plus 6 missed games). When I get time, I might do that for one of the other recent champs.

We all agree that rotations tighten up for the tournament. The question was whether depth in the regular season (not just garbage time) helps a team in the NCAAT.

Just to be clear, I calculated it a little differently.

I looked at the box score of each game decided by 10 points or less and then averaged all the minutes coming from the 9th man for that game. Which, to be fair, the 7.6 minutes they got from their 9th man in close games was still more than what we got from ours.

But my take away is when it mattered, Michigan shortened their rotation. They relied on depth less. This was most apparent in the tournament where their 9th player off the bench averaged 1.33 minutes per game yet they still won the natty with relative ease. So, I'm not sure I can buy that depth played a sizeable role in Michigan winning a championship.

That's not to disqualify your other examples.

 

[wc_illini]

Just to be clear, I calculated it a little differently.

I looked at the box score of each game decided by 10 points or less and then averaged all the minutes coming from the 9th man for that game. Which, to be fair, the 7.6 minutes they got from their 9th man in close games was still more than what we got from ours.

But my take away is when it mattered, Michigan shortened their rotation. They relied on depth less. This was most apparent in the tournament where their 9th player off the bench averaged 1.33 minutes per game yet they still won the natty with relative ease. So, I'm not sure I can buy that depth played a sizeable role in Michigan winning a championship.

That's not to disqualify your other examples.

Ah, I see. By that method I even get 7.1mpg for their 9th man in close games (maybe you excluded the NCG?), and never a 10th man. Before Cason's injury it was 11.9mpg, and after that it was 0mpg. And you are right- for us, it was 0.8mpg/0.2mpg for 9th/10th man in all close games, and didn't change much when we were "full" strength (1.2mpg/0.3mpg for 9th/10th).

We never really got to play at full strength due to Rodgers injury, plus my point isn't to criticize our roster last year, but to merely suggest that if Williams or any of the other less heralded freshman are decent, there's a good argument to play them ~10min even during close games in the regular season.

Though I agree that there's no way to know if there's any causation to this or if it's just correlation.

 

[wc_illini]

...and I'm not dying on the hill that we play 9+ in close games. I looked at Michigan's close games only because someone brought it up, and it's interesting that they did. A quick glance at Florida shows ~8mpg from their 9th man in close games at full strength, while 2023-24 UConn hardly got any (but did get 5mpg from their 8th man in close games when they were down a starter). I don't care to look further back right now.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

When Jake Davis leaves, very likely he'll depart as one of our biggest legacy guys. 5 for 5 passing means he can return for another year.

Think about how much he will have seen:

-- came in as our #9thMan in 2025 (in the summer was thought to be our 10th or 11th; Booth was a bust and Ty redshirt)

-- played pivotal role on F4 team in 2026

-- 2027; team will start the season ranked top 5, end result TBD

-- 2028; highly respected senior leader if he chooses to stick around

His game is perhaps the least flashiest on the team, but that's a guy that will have made multi millions once his college career is done.... simply by being the most simplistic and trustworthy role player.

 

[Dan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2076701608331579611

 

[Dan]

 

[Second place is 1st loser]

When Jake Davis leaves, very likely he'll depart as one of our biggest legacy guys. 5 for 5 passing means he can return for another year.

Think about how much he will have seen:

-- came in as our #9thMan in 2025 (in the summer was thought to be our 10th or 11th; Booth was a bust and Ty redshirt)

-- played pivotal role on F4 team in 2026

-- 2027; team will start the season ranked top 5, end result TBD

-- 2028; highly respected senior leader if he chooses to stick around

His game is perhaps the least flashiest on the team, but that's a guy that will have made multi millions once his college career is done.... simply by being the most simplistic and trustworthy role player.

What's the requirement to get to a legacy level? I love Jake. He has an important role with his ability to stretch the floor and he is definitely a positive influence/leader.

However, I'd think that being an All Conference player, DPOY...having any sort of accolades, at minimum, would be required to enter legacy status.

You are correct with the fact that he'll be a tenured guy within a winning program. I think there's a huge difference between beloved status and legacy status and Jake will fit the mold of beloved.

 

[Dan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2076734887218819203

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

What's the requirement to get to a legacy level? I love Jake. He has an important role with his ability to stretch the floor and he is definitely a positive influence/leader.

However, I'd think that being an All Conference player, DPOY...having any sort of accolades, at minimum, would be required to enter legacy status.

You are correct with the fact that he'll be a tenured guy within a winning program. I think there's a huge difference between beloved status and legacy status and Jake will fit the mold of beloved.

Unless he transfers next summer (perhaps not impossible), he'll only be the 4th player to play 4 years at Illinois under Brad Underwood. Coleman Hawkins, DaMonte, Trent the other three.

Regardless of how you define a "legacy" and "beloved," there's absolutely a distinguished value for that, especially in the transfer climate.

.....

Two summers ago our transfer class composed of:

-- Kylan Boswell
-- Tre White
-- Ben Humrichous
-- Carey Booth
-- Jake Davis

Who had thought, two years later, Jake Davis could reasonably end up having the second biggest impact of all those names? The guy came in as a pure stash, but ...

Tre -- transfered after one season.
Ben -- very similar roles last year; but only 2 years compared to 4.
Booth -- Bust with a capital B.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2076743578659823714

 

[WhereDoWeStandWithStorr?]

Jake Davis led all of college basketball with a 146.6 offensive rating, which matched the highest individual offensive rating by any qualified player since 2014.

 

[ironhand]

UConn Tickets

It looks like Uconn tickets are now on sale. I couldn't figure out how to order them. I left a voice mail and a digital email and have not heard from them. I am an I Fund contributor.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2076781718330057015

 

[Grandpa]

Jake Davis led all of college basketball with a 146.6 offensive rating, which matched the highest individual offensive rating by any qualified player since 2014.

There's room for improvement. Maybe he will get the Senior bump

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2076781718330057015

“Best team in the big ten” is subjective based on what you value.

Most talented roster: USC
Best Offense: Illinois
Best defense: Michigan
Best player: Michigan State (Fears)

I think you could go any direction.

To me LJ Cason is the biggest swing factor in this Big Ten season. Dusty said he will be back at some point. If he returns to being the same player in a 6th man role, I think Michigan supplants USC as the best roster. And paired with their defensive ability, that should make them #1 (in the conference).

USC’s rotation 9. Starters: Rice, Arenas, Lewis, Cofie, and Reibe. Bench: Cox, Collins (#8 freshman), Ratliff (#20 freshman), Ratliff (#31 freshman).

Michigan rotation 9. Starters: Cadeau, McKenney, McCoy, Estrella, Thiam. Bench: Cason, Cosby (#43 freshman), Castillo (#33 freshman), Reed.

Illinois is pretty clearly a step behind the two in terms of depth. We’ll rely on great injury luck, along with needing our newcomers to hit perfectly. Still, floor spacing and scheme will be good enough to generate good shots, and hopefully another efficient offense.

The 5th team after that should be UCLA.

Purdue has earned more credibility and benefit of the doubt than Nebraska.

I think Nebby has a season similar to two years ago (when they lost Mast for the season) - one All Big Ten player with no help around him. It’s a team that’ll be ranked preseason, based off of Cinderella discourse, but could’ve been in danger of missing the dance had it not expanded.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

 

[jamarvelous31]

“Best team in the big ten” is subjective based on what you value.

Most talented roster: USC
Best Offense: Illinois
Best defense: Michigan
Best player: Michigan State (Fears)

I think you could go any direction.

To me LJ Cason is the biggest swing factor in this Big Ten season. Dusty said he will be back at some point. If he returns to being the same player in a 6th man role, I think Michigan supplants USC as the best roster. And paired with their defensive ability, that should make them #1 (in the conference).

USC’s rotation 9. Starters: Rice, Arenas, Lewis, Cofie, and Reibe. Bench: Cox, Collins (#8 freshman), Ratliff (#20 freshman), Ratliff (#31 freshman).

Michigan rotation 9. Starters: Cadeau, McKenney, McCoy, Estrella, Thiam. Bench: Cason, Cosby (#43 freshman), Castillo (#33 freshman), Reed.

Illinois is pretty clearly a step behind the two in terms of depth. We’ll rely on great injury luck, along with needing our newcomers to hit perfectly. Still, floor spacing and scheme will be good enough to generate good shots, and hopefully another efficient offense.

The 5th team after that should be UCLA.

Purdue has earned more credibility and benefit of the doubt than Nebraska.

I think Nebby has a season similar to two years ago (when they lost Mast for the season) - one All Big Ten player with no help around him. It’s a team that’ll be ranked preseason, based off of Cinderella discourse, but could’ve been in danger of missing the dance had it not expanded.

This completely lines up with rankings and vegas agreeing that IL has the third best team in the B10, right?

I should Google this...

 

[lstewart53x3]

Illinois is pretty clearly a step behind the two in terms of depth. We’ll rely on great injury luck, along with needing our newcomers to hit perfectly. Still, floor spacing and scheme will be good enough to generate good shots, and hopefully another efficient offense.

Torvik has USC at 31 in its projections. You could remove our 3 best players; Mirk, Andrej, and Vaaks, and Torvik would still project us as a better team:

 

[NarrowJ]

Torvik has USC at 31 in its projections. You could remove our 3 best players; Mirk, Andrej, and Vaaks, and Torvik would still project us as a better team:

View attachment 50860

The person you are responding to almost never has anything positive to say about Illinois and constantly posts positive things about Michigan, USC, UConn, basically any team other than Illinois (or whatever team Illinois is being compared to in any given post). Take a stroll through the post history.

 

[RollChief]

“Best team in the big ten” is subjective based on what you value.

There's a pretty solid argument for Illinois if you value the best 5 guys (and probably best 7 guys). You mention USC having the best talent, but IMO Cofie, Riebe and the freshmen Ratcliff boys can't hold a candle to having Mirk + Senior Ivisics. I don't think you can find a frontcourt in the B1G that can, so I'm not sure how you're measuring talent.

Illinois is pretty clearly a step behind the two in terms of depth. We’ll rely on great injury luck, along with needing our newcomers to hit perfectly. Still, floor spacing and scheme will be good enough to generate good shots, and hopefully another efficient offense.

Virtually every team trying to compete for a championship relies on great injury luck. I tried to find one team that has won a championship after a starter had a season-ending injury or missed a substantial part of the season because of injury, and I couldn't find one (although I stopped looking at 2013, so call it in modern times). Keeping your best players healthy is one of the key ingredients for winning a championship.

I feel like there has been enough evidence provided here that being able to go 9 deep is nice but non-essential; but if you need any more evidence, there is not a single modern college basketball team that has won a national championship by turning to your bench after a starter injury.

Call me a homer but I'll take our top 7 over any other top 7 in the B1G going into the season, and perhaps over any top 7 in the nation depending on how things come together this season.

 

[lstewart53x3]

There's a pretty solid argument for Illinois if you value the best 5 guys (and probably best 7 guys). You mention USC having the best talent, but IMO Cofie, Riebe and the freshmen Ratcliff boys can't hold a candle to having Mirk + Senior Ivisics. I don't think you can find a frontcourt in the B1G that can, so I'm not sure how you're measuring talent.

Virtually every team trying to compete for a championship relies on great injury luck. I tried to find one team that has won a championship after a starter had a season-ending injury or missed a substantial part of the season because of injury, and I couldn't find one (although I stopped looking at 2013, so call it in modern times). Keeping your best players healthy is one of the key ingredients for winning a championship.

I feel like there has been enough evidence provided here that being able to go 9 deep is nice but non-essential; but if you need any more evidence, there is not a single modern college basketball team that has won a national championship by turning to your bench after a starter injury.

Call me a homer but I'll take our top 7 over any other top 7 in the B1G going into the season, and perhaps over any top 7 in the nation depending on how things come together this season.

Yeah, I mean looking at Draft Kings player of the year betting odds, USC and Illinois both have 4 players on the list.

USC’s players are ranked:

45, 48, 80, 81

Illinois has 3 players ranked higher than USC’s best player:

4, 11, 35, 72

In no world is USC a more talented team. If Brad rolled out USC’s roster in 2026/2027, the fans on this board would want him fired.