Illini Basketball 2025-2026
- Status
Lots of season remaining, but there may be a world where Mirkovic turns out a better investment than Morez OR Josh Dix OR Dame Sarr.
2018 and 2019 for certain had more returning production than this team. Long way to go talent wise however.
I don't think that's correct. This team returns more minutes and more scoring than 2018 and roughly the same minutes and scoring as 2019.
Besides that, we're not competing against the 2019 Illini. We're competing against all the other 2026 teams. Which is why it's good to see where we stack up relative to our competition. Even though we're returning roughly the same as 2019, 2019 was below the national average and 2026 is above.
The chart RollChief shared showed that when we return more minutes than our competition (on average), good things happen.
Edit: I guess the chart doesn't show good things happen, that's my added commentary.
Last edited:
Wanted to compare some of the data from my B1G Roster Tracker spreadsheet, so I've been playing around a little this morning. Wanted to look at how 'experienced' we are this year compared to last year. My original spreadsheet only tracked power conference minutes, so I've done the same here. I realized my failure with the original spreadsheet, however: there are some really good players (stars, even) who had come from non-PC teams. So, I included those in the graphic to note where players weren't counted as having PC experience but were great players nonetheless.
The thing that sticks out to me immediately is the average experience is down by about 20% or so. This is probably due to covid guys being gone (or mostly gone? anyone left? idk...)
The other immediate takeaway was that last year we were second-to-last in the entire conference in PC experience, and this year we're 3rd.
Smaller thing I noticed was Rutgers with only 1,119 last year. They went *really* young and you can see that bit them pretty hard (I mean they also just basically did not have any talent around their stud frosh, so there's that too).
I think as previous posts in this thread have said, having more actual experience this year should help us quite a bit. Look at this year's numbers and the widely projected top 2 (Michigan & Purdue) are also #1 & #2 here.
The thing that sticks out to me immediately is the average experience is down by about 20% or so. This is probably due to covid guys being gone (or mostly gone? anyone left? idk...)
The other immediate takeaway was that last year we were second-to-last in the entire conference in PC experience, and this year we're 3rd.
Smaller thing I noticed was Rutgers with only 1,119 last year. They went *really* young and you can see that bit them pretty hard (I mean they also just basically did not have any talent around their stud frosh, so there's that too).
I think as previous posts in this thread have said, having more actual experience this year should help us quite a bit. Look at this year's numbers and the widely projected top 2 (Michigan & Purdue) are also #1 & #2 here.
What stands out to me is the top 4 teams in returning minutes last year didn't do ****. So there appears to be a lot of exceptions to the "rule".
Yes, they were middle of the pack! That's also an interesting observation. I don't think there are any "rules" tbh, it was just an interesting exercise.
Michigan State and Indiana last year diminish this correlation to winning off
The teams with the most PC experience last year were all middle-of-the-pack, yes
I'm unsure this tells us that more experience is not a good thing, or doesn't matter, however
I think non-PC experience should be considered also (noted in original post as well)
EDIT: I will redo this graphic to include non-PC minutes (if you add all of MSU's mid-major guys, Gillespie for 2nd place Maryland, Goldin/Wolf for 3rd place Michigan, and Tonje for 4th place Wisconsin, I'm guessing we'll see more correlation... so its just my bad for how I compiled this)
Last edited:
I took NarrowJ's "PC Mins" data and added to it Returning Minutes %, Returning Points %, and coach win % to see which variable had the strongest correlation to making the tournament and improving total wins YoY.
- Coach win % had a moderate correlation to making the tournament.
- PC Mins had a very weak correlation to making the tournament.
- Coach win % had a weak correlation to YoY win improvement.
- No other variables had any real influence on making the tournament or YoY improvement.
Gotta believe this is just due to a small sample size as EvanMiya, KenPom, Torvik, et al. have shown in the past that returning production and experience are all key predictive variables.
Interestingly, coach win % had a slight negative correlation with returning minutes. So the better the coach, the less returning minutes. Possibly due to the fact that good coaches have good players and good players have value either in the portal or the pros and thus have more incentive to leave. (Again, small sample size though.)
Finally, haven't seen this shared before. B1G's top 5 active coaches by win %.
Tom Izzo: .710
Matt Painter: .693
Eric Musselman: .683
Brad Underwood: .682
Mick Cronin: .682
- Coach win % had a moderate correlation to making the tournament.
- PC Mins had a very weak correlation to making the tournament.
- Coach win % had a weak correlation to YoY win improvement.
- No other variables had any real influence on making the tournament or YoY improvement.
Gotta believe this is just due to a small sample size as EvanMiya, KenPom, Torvik, et al. have shown in the past that returning production and experience are all key predictive variables.
Interestingly, coach win % had a slight negative correlation with returning minutes. So the better the coach, the less returning minutes. Possibly due to the fact that good coaches have good players and good players have value either in the portal or the pros and thus have more incentive to leave. (Again, small sample size though.)
Finally, haven't seen this shared before. B1G's top 5 active coaches by win %.
Tom Izzo: .710
Matt Painter: .693
Eric Musselman: .683
Brad Underwood: .682
Mick Cronin: .682
Here is last year with non-PC minutes added. I'm a little surprised that there actually isn't as much correlation as I would've thought.
Looking at teams like Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, USC, Washington... I guess experience doesn't matter too much if the players just aren't very good.
But yeah, all over the place. I really thought this might show something, but I don't think it does. Womp womp.
Looking at teams like Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, USC, Washington... I guess experience doesn't matter too much if the players just aren't very good.
But yeah, all over the place. I really thought this might show something, but I don't think it does. Womp womp.
Big difference in returning Smith and K-Renn than 4 role players. Evaluation based on points, rebounds and assists more valuable than minutes.
GrayGhost77
- Centennial, CO
ptgrd23
- orange county CA
We are returning 3 starters - Tomas, Kylan and Ben. We also are returning reserve Jake. I am not counting Ty until I see him on the court.
We added 3 potential starters - David, Mihalo and Andre.
We added some good reserves - Keaton and big Z.
That barring injury makes us 8 deep.
We added 3 potential starters - David, Mihalo and Andre.
We added some good reserves - Keaton and big Z.
That barring injury makes us 8 deep.
Hopefully if we can stay healthy…..beginning to look like a MASH unit.
wagler...I see you.
They were right about Keaton… he does it methodically, and without all the flash.
But that dude is legit.
But that dude is legit.
I am fully aware that we have only played two low level teams, but this team came out and stepped on each of them from the tip. Yes, we typically beat cupcakes by a large margin, but even in the last two years that margin seemed to open in the second half. To my memory, only our very best teams have stomped teams that they're supposed to beat from tip to final buzzer. We have flow and team play now that we have been waiting until Feb to see in the last few years, and that bodes well for us to have a success in a gauntlet of a non-conference schedule. My expectations were already fairly high, but by the eye test, we look much better than the 17-ranked team in the country.
I feel like the truly great teams don't play the competition as much as they're playing to be keep improving and becoming the best version of themselves. Not sure where this group is at, but there are early tests that will tell us. Certainly reasons to be optimistic.
- Status