2017 Coaching Carousel
- Status
The data that transfers in general are on the rise? That has a lot more to do with playing time and discipline than coaching changes. You can't really cite the articles about more transfers as a sweeping conclusion that existing roster players are more likely to leave the program than incoming recruits upon a coaching change.
The point I was making and it really had absolutely nothing to do with this season was that if there is a question whether or not to make a coaching decision at the end of next season and it is a close decision you make the change rather than seeing what the next year holds. The timing is much better following 17-18 than following 18-19. That way you are not stuck in the situation that is ongoing right now where there is question over if the coach is the right guy but you might not want to get rid of him because you have a large and generally skilled recruiting class coming in. Do you really think anyone would argue to keep a coach that doesn't achieve his goals if he was only bringing in say Damonte and Pickett? A lot less people would be wary of making a change because of the smaller class with guys that are solid but not stars.
But back to the original point.... I would bet you cannot find any data to support more athletes transferring upon a coaching change than reopening their recruitments. And that is because it is basically expected that kids reopen the process based on a coaching change. We all know Groce had to resell Hill when he took the job and Hill. Sure some guys will transfer out like Shaw and Ibby but those are guys that weren't really getting much tick before the coaching change which falls directly in line with every other program in the country that has transfers.
You're mixing up terms here. By "transfer" I'm referring to players already on the team leaving. Recruits "decommitting" (I know it's technically not decommitting since they've signed, but that word will do for these purposes) is a different thing.
What I'm seeing in a limited sample size is that transfers are a bigger risk than "decommits" in a coaching change scenario, especially with young guys with a lot of years of eligibility left.
That would indicate that, contrary to the conventional wisdom here, we're actually more likely to lose Tilmon and Frazier by firing Groce after their freshman year than by firing him this offseason.
Which makes a certain amount of sense if you think about it. When are you more attached to a coach, before you've ever played for him, or after you've gone through the formative experience of your first year away from home in an intense, brand new environment with him?
The sit-out year isn't the impediment it used to be. I'm not sure why, but the trend could not be any clearer on that point.
Off to a good start, let us know when you've finished.
Power Five head coach firings of the last two years is a small list. Kind of shockingly small. The only ones I didn't include were Donnie Tyndall because that was an NCAA thing, and Johnny Dawkins at Stanford because Stanford is just kind of a different deal.
I don't believe either of those schools lost any recruits either, I just wanted to stick with directly comparable situations.
Not sure there really is an opposite case here to be made. It is a good class, perhaps lessened by the Damonte injury but it isn't transformative (at least on paper) like a Fab 5 or Anderson, Gill, Bardo and Smith class.
Timon is a big deal because we finally beat out the big boys for once and rarely in our history have we had a guy with his size, length and potential. That said I don't see him being here for more than 2 years no matter who is coaching. I'm more bullish on his potential then some and I think he will be a load in college when other teams can't quadruple team him or gameplay just around him.
Regardless if John Groce cannot succeed with the team he has this year then he has to go. If it costs Timon thats just part of it. This years team has too many pieces not to make some noise in conference and tournament
I have shown evidence that for signed LOI recruits, that's not as true as you'd think. Feel free to rebut with evidence of your own.
Putting Shaw and Ibby in the same category kinda throws out the baby with the bathwater, right? One was roster flotsam, the other was at the time considered to be a cornerstone of the future.
Like, put it this way, under the theory you've constructed, who would we consider more likely to have stuck it out after Weber got fired, Malcolm Hill or Myke Henry? That's just one example, but I think it speaks to a larger trend.
To bring it to this scenario, we're terrified of losing Trent Frazier, but no one is even considering the possibility of losing Te'Jon Lucas. I think that's based on a faulty assumption.
People are calling you data, not necessarily the point. I have honestly not seen a study/data that shows statistics on that. Your original data showed transfers on the rise (which nobody argues). That is not an indication of recruits/transfers being more/less likely IF a coaching change. You can cherry pick a few examples, and nobody will argue that both transfers and recruit defections are less likely if the school makes a home run hire, but there is no data/study as you claim that shows overall trends. Furthermore, the ranking of recruits will make a difference (i.e., options they will have) on their decision as will the performance of existing players (i.e., lesser players are more susceptible to creaning). It would be interesting if data did exist, but that is a very controlled experiment.
WiscIllini
- Madison, WI
My bugaboo with your scenario is that Lucas has a clear path to playing time next year whereas I don't think Ibby and Shaw really did, and Groce probably told them as much.
I didn't cherry pick anything. That's all we've got for the last two years, which the links show are the period when transfers have really exploded.
But that's data, as opposed to unsupported and somewhat spurious assumptions about two 18 year old kids that none of us know.
All assumptions here are weighted in favor of the idea that the roster will be stronger if we wait a year to fire Groce. I think there are compelling arguments that even if that is true, it shouldn't be a factor in the decision, but I also think that assumption rests on very, very shaky support.
Using Bill Cubit as a temporary get-me-over coach rightly sparked hysterical outrage in the Illinois fan community. Now barely a year later we're proposing to do the same thing again? Doesn't make sense to me.
Well, and obviously all the guys Groce creaned had played a full year under him, so it's a bit apples and oranges.
Does Lucas have a clear path to playing time? What if Frazier and Mark Smith are in his way, both with more years of eligibility than he has?
Why limit it to 2 years? The "transfers exploding" isn't correlated to your point in any way unless you're also claiming coaching changes have "exploded" as well?
Come on, don't quit on us now!
yes agreed a good coach should always exceed recruiting expectations. I was talking about a team that is in a mid major or smaller conference like the MVC. Consider a coach from a middle of the pack school there if he wants to be like a Wichita st then hes gonna have to recruit guys who out perform there rankings. Not saying it cant be something a coach does here but that would be like the equivalent of getting a recruit thats ranked around 200 and having him become an all-conference player at UI. Maybe you consider what, for example, Bo Ryan did at Wisky as more of a better developer of talent than getting diamond in the rough type players. I would say those are two in the same. On the surface to the layman, his recruits looked pretty bad for a P5 school, yet he got them to play above what ranking services would project. I guess its harder to see a coach get top 50 guys and have them become NBA picks and say hes a developer of players but whatever you want to call it Wisky very rarely got top 50 guys and did great year in and year out. Therefore I would say he was a good finder of diamond in the rough guys.
Regarding Chicago recruits. Chicago players are over-rated. They get rated higher than downstate players b/c they are seen by more evaluators and b/c the general assumption is that there is more talent in Chicago. Well, my quantity that is correct and obviously b/c of the number of players in Chicago than the elite players usually come from there which bumps up the evaluation for all Chicago players. But, too many Chicago players lack the basic fundamentals.
Furthermore, I discount recruiting rankings b/c they are based mostly on AAU circuit where real basketball is not played. There is little to no emphasis on defense, no team play and there aren't any real coaches. It's why Wisconsin and Michigan get "lower-ranked" recruits and the players end up being really good. They are looking for good basketball players and don't care about rankings.
Honestly, AAU has hurt the game more than it has helped the game. We have had several top 100 recruit guards that can't even play competent fundamental basketball. JCL can't play D or drive to the hoop. Paul had to develop into a decent ball-handler and Nunn could only dribble with one hand.
Lastly, regarding next year's class I don't care about rankings. I care if Frazier is as good as Cowan at Maryland. If so, we've got a player. I care if Pickett and Damonte know how to play the game (handle the ball, defend, and pass to the open player) I'm not expecting too much from Tilmon b/c bigs struggle in their first year and JT's ranking is based more on potential, thus he'll probably struggle a bit in his Freshman season.
We're all on here trying to figure out who are next coach is going to be and who might transfer and who might not commit etc, and this season is only halfway through. Why don't we wait and see how the season plays out before we all waste time speculating.
I know that's not going to happen, but it's just a thought
Furthermore, I discount recruiting rankings b/c they are based mostly on AAU circuit where real basketball is not played. There is little to no emphasis on defense, no team play and there aren't any real coaches. It's why Wisconsin and Michigan get "lower-ranked" recruits and the players end up being really good. They are looking for good basketball players and don't care about rankings.
Honestly, AAU has hurt the game more than it has helped the game. We have had several top 100 recruit guards that can't even play competent fundamental basketball. JCL can't play D or drive to the hoop. Paul had to develop into a decent ball-handler and Nunn could only dribble with one hand.
Lastly, regarding next year's class I don't care about rankings. I care if Frazier is as good as Cowan at Maryland. If so, we've got a player. I care if Pickett and Damonte know how to play the game (handle the ball, defend, and pass to the open player) I'm not expecting too much from Tilmon b/c bigs struggle in their first year and JT's ranking is based more on potential, thus he'll probably struggle a bit in his Freshman season.
We're all on here trying to figure out who are next coach is going to be and who might transfer and who might not commit etc, and this season is only halfway through. Why don't we wait and see how the season plays out before we all waste time speculating.
I know that's not going to happen, but it's just a thought
Another interesting transfer factoid that has nothing to do with the recent topic:
False. Brian Butch and Sam Dekker were both top 10 players in the country, Joe Krabbenhoft was a 5 star, and there were many many other Top 100 guys that went through Wisconsin under Bo.
There were also many three star guys who were lightly recruited who became stars. What both sets of players had in common was that they were expertly scouted as perfect fits for what Wisconsin does. Bo did not waste his time lusting after talented players who wouldn't work as cogs in his machine. Whether they had offers from Duke or Drake, Bo knew who the "Wisconsin guys" were.
Not only are the last two years very limited, but these are the only coaching changes in the last 2 years? Also, I am not sure what temporarily hiring an interim assistant as head coach has anything to do with retaining Groce. It is a totally different situation.
Furthermore, there is an unusual situation as well with Groce in that coaching changes (excluding off-court issues, etc.) are more often linked with declines (or failure to improve) recruiting but rarely with arguably the best recruiting class under the coach who gets fired.
I am not in support of keeping Groce, for different reasons explained earlier, but you seem to be trying to support your position with "guarantees" as to how the AD or players will actually react to a coaching hire, without even knowing who the coach will be. Much depends on who the new coach will be, the ranking of the incoming recruits, their options, the performance of existing players, their options, etc. There is no such controlled data experiment to make such generalized statements and guarantees.
No. I'm trying to challenge conventional wisdom with facts that appear to me to run contrary to those assumptions.
If I'm guilty of occasionally offering an overconfident prediction with tongue-in-cheek, forgive me. But I think there are some similarly illogical assumptions that are just baked into the cake around here and aren't being adequately challenged.
Among Power Five schools who fired their previous head coach, those four plus Tyndall at Tennessee and Dawkins at Stanford are it, yeah. If I'm missing somebody let me know.
The common theme is "we are going to essentially forfeit a season of revenue sport competition because we want to fire the head coach we have no confidence in at a later date for extrinsic reasons. But of course we're still going to make our players shed blood sweat and tears and make our fans pay for tickets and sit through the games."
Does Groce have a bit more credibility in the job than Cubit did? Of course, I'm not denying that. But after a missed tournament I think the message would be the same, if more softly broadcast.
Last edited:
Just catching up on this, but I think you've mischaracterized S&C. You're not alone in this as I think much of the board is misinterpreting him. Perhaps because I've stayed away due to the way the season has transpired I've missed a greater problem with him. But in this case, I think he's actually making the opposite of a guarantee. There is a large number of posters who think Groce can't be let go because we'll lose our recruits. S&C is simply pointing out that in fact we cannot predict what these kids will do. I think he's making exactly the point you want him to make. He could perhaps do so more eloquently, but that's my read.
I actually agree with him on this point and on most of his points. He's making the same points I made years ago with respect to Weber. This is not the guy that is going to take the program where all of us want the program to go, so it is probably best to move on regardless of the way the season plays out. That's obviously not realistic, Groce will be kept if we make the tourney, but I've seen enough to conclude that he's just a guy and not the guy.
A more strait-forward (or perhaps biased) way of looking at this from my perspective is that the arguments for keeping Groce are based in fear of things actually getting worse
whereas the arguments for moving on are based in the optimism that things can be so much better.
Sure a few guys were ranked highly and yes he got top 100 players too (I'd guess on average one every year), but his bread and butter was finding underranked kids and making them stars. Any B1g bball program should get top 100 players. Just because he found some talent doesn't mean his entire roster was comprised of highly touted guys. Ryan was still a great example of a coach that did more with less, regardless of if he ever got 5 star recruits or not. And this expert scouting that you speak of is literally what finding a diamond in the rough means. Others dont see the potential they have, but the coach that gives them a chance does. Wisconsin had similar, though still not as good, production throughout Ryan's tenure as the blue bloods did. He did it without a team full of 5 star guys. So maybe he was consistently in the top 50 for recruiting classes, but he was even more consistently in the top 25 and winning tournament games.
I forgive you
Challenging points is good, nothing wrong with that, or supporting your position. But I think you often go too far with the "fan base should just feel as strongly" attitude.
As far as the conventional wisdom on making a coaching change, the AD should make a decision based on the best long term interest of the program IMO. Are there risks on losing recruits and players? They always are, indeed, but those risks should still not inhibit the decision to make a change. Rather than pretending that those risks do not exist (especially without knowing who the new coach would be).
Yeah, but not many get multiple top 10 guys. The last recruit Illinois landed of the caliber of Butch and Dekker was....good lord, was it Marcus Liberty?
We've had a few in the neighborhood of that range of course, but the moral of the story is that there was real, elite talent on some of those Wisconsin teams, especially the very best ones.
What I will grant you is that even at their talent peaks, Wisconsin would frequently beat still more talented teams, and even during years when the talent level ebbed, the performance did not.
WiscIllini
- Madison, WI
In the scenario where Groce is fired, how long does Frazier get to decide whether he wants out? If I'm Lucas I'm at least waiting until I know what Frazier wants before I even think about sitting another year somewhere else. I just can't see him behind 2 freshman on the depth chart, either, so I think regardless of what Frazier does that Lucas will get plenty of minutes next year.
kcib8130
- Parts Unknown
That's because they recruited to a system more than to make the message boards happy. they did that part by winning on the floor.
Bo made that stuff happen.
The latest set of post is actually in response to me suggesting UI fires Groce after next season versus after the 18-19 season even if it is debatable if he should still be on for the following season. Never once did I say anything about this season because the post I was replying to was actually assuming Groce does enough to survive this offseason. So at the end of the day I'm not real sure why the rants are occurring with all of 4 data points. One can simply look at UI history if we want to cherry pick data and show that no material transfers occurred when the school transitioned from Self to Weber but Charlie V went elsewhere. If I really wanted to I am sure there are other instances. The issue with finding them is that the subset of data is incredibly small where the school has strong commits coming in and the coach leaves/gets fired/etc to really get to the bottom of this analysis. As someone else pointed out many fridge 100 or lower recruits won't back out of a P5 ride simply because other P5 programs can't make room for them that late in the cycle.
Also for the record I think Groce is a pretty solid human being but am perfectly fine with him being replaced following this season if he doesn't make the dance.
- Status