Illini Basketball 2026-2027

#151      
Fly Illini Fly!
RabidDawgClassic said:
Well… let’s just land Luigi next year. 😎
Click to expand...
This has been my thought all along. It's like Z the year he went to Arkansas. Or when Boswell went to AZ.

"If he were to hypothetically transfer from this school, where's he most likely to end up?" At no point is it too early to ask the question (especially if we have that kind of ties to him).

Guys transfer left and right now. NEVER is it a good idea to burn bridges.

.....

Luigi reminds me of Mara, who wasn't anywhere near as good playing for Cronin.
 
Last edited:
#152      
Combo
ptgrd23 said:
Jakstys 6'10' 220 is significantly stronger than Lieb so he can help out of somebody is beating up Tomas or Big Z in the paint and David is in foul trouble.
Landon Davis is 6'9" 220 lbs but does not look as strong.

in 2027 we run the risk of Tomas, Big Z graduating and David to NBA. Depending on what bigs we can bring in Jakstys and Landon Davis might be playing significant 4 or 5 roles.
Click to expand...
I don't buy that Jakstys (pending a full recovery) is the same as Lieb. In the brief time we've seem him, he looked like he put on quality weight. He's also much more athletic than Lieb.
 
#156      
PepeSilvia
PleaseMakeABowlGame said:
Worth noting that the game has changed.

Our 125.5 rating in 2024 was good for 3rd for that year, but would be 10th in 2026.

Alabama finished with the #3 offense last year at 129.7.

To be a top 3 offense next year, we’re probably gonna have to be pushing 130.
Click to expand...
Please keep in mind that Kenpom is compared to the mean of that season. It's not useful to compare an o-rating from season to season.

I would venture a guess that a lot of the inflation in orating is simply a result of their being a worse mean as NIL has continued to expand and a lot of the best players on mid majors transfer up to power conference programs(even in bench roles).

Basically NIL and the instant transfer are just allowing talent to consolidate at the top moreso than it did 5 or even 10 years ago.
 
#157      
HouTexIllini
BWBW said:
We are "grandfathered" in given it is a long standing agreement?
Click to expand...
I don’t think “grandfathered” is a thing in this scenario.

Texas Tech football didn’t seem interested in keeping scheduling agreements when they allegedly bought out their scheduled first game of the year and Texas’ first game this season.

If the conference does make a unified ban, I’m sure Illinois would be persuaded to follow suit. Many ADs and coaches in the coaching fraternity did not appreciate Texas Tech athletic dept, President, and admin pressing hard and far against NCAA rules to enable a person who gambled on his own team to gain eligibility.
 
#158      
PleaseMakeABowlGame
Fly Illini Fly! said:
This has been my thought all along. It's like Z the year he went to Arkansas. Or when Boswell went to AZ.

"If he were to hypothetically transfer from this school, where's he most likely to end up?" At no point is it too early to ask the question (especially if we have that kind of ties to him).

Guys transfer left and right now. NEVER is it a good idea to burn bridges.

.....

Luigi reminds me of Mara, who wasn't anywhere near as good playing for Cronin.
Click to expand...
Most likely a 1 & done.
 
#159      
rmlsr
LvilleILL1 said:
Already hearing some stuff.....will post something by the end of the weekend after the first week is done.

I will add one nugget already: Stefan Vaaks has exceeded expectations so far.
Click to expand...
Hd Reaction GIF by MOODMAN
 
#160      
fuggles
PepeSilvia said:
Please keep in mind that Kenpom is compared to the mean of that season. It's not useful to compare an o-rating from season to season.

I would venture a guess that a lot of the inflation in orating is simply a result of their being a worse mean as NIL has continued to expand and a lot of the best players on mid majors transfer up to power conference programs(even in bench roles).

Basically NIL and the instant transfer are just allowing talent to consolidate at the top moreso than it did 5 or even 10 years ago.
Click to expand...
No. O-rating is points per 100 possession adjusted for opponent. Not mean.
 
#164      
wc_illini
fuggles said:
No. O-rating is points per 100 possession adjusted for opponent. Not mean.
Click to expand...
I'd say yes and no.

From KenPom's methodology page (my bad if this has been changed; there isn't an easy way to know if this is his latest post about it):

"AdjEM is the difference between a team’s offensive and defensive efficiency...It represents the number of points the team would be expected to outscore the average D-I team over 100 possessions"

By extension, AdjO is Pts/100 against an average defense.

However, shifting players from mid-majors to power conferences changes the median moreso than the mean, so it isn't ridiculous to compare across seasons. But it isn't perfect either, since what we really care about is how we perform against other top teams.
 
#167      
fuggles
wc_illini said:
I'd say yes and no.

From KenPom's methodology page (my bad if this has been changed; there isn't an easy way to know if this is his latest post about it):

"AdjEM is the difference between a team’s offensive and defensive efficiency...It represents the number of points the team would be expected to outscore the average D-I team over 100 possessions"

By extension, AdjO is Pts/100 against an average defense.

However, shifting players from mid-majors to power conferences changes the median moreso than the mean, so it isn't ridiculous to compare across seasons. But it isn't perfect either, since what we really care about is how we perform against other top teams.
Click to expand...
Yea. I should have added I do agree that comparing ortg numbers between seasons is not valid because no matter the methodology defenses are not the same year to year. Even if we use unadjusted numbers such as sports reference comparison would not be meaningful. Interesting tho, last years unadjusting offensive numbers and ranking was 125 ppp and #1 in the country. fwiw.
 
#168      
PepeSilvia
fuggles said:
No. O-rating is points per 100 possession adjusted for opponent. Not mean.
Click to expand...
I mean it takes offensive production and then rates against the average team(the mean) from that season. To predict how each offense would produce over 100 possessions against the average opponent.

It still doesn't work as a comparison across years. If talent consolidates at the top and the average team has less talent compared to the top than previous seasons than you will see higher o ratings from that team.

There are 354 division 1 teams. When the talent condenses and the power schools naturally take the best players from small schools every year, it makes perfect sense that the efficiency gap between them would grow.
 
#169      
wc_illini
PepeSilvia said:
I mean it takes offensive production and then rates against the average team(the mean) from that season. To predict how each offense would produce over 100 possessions against the average opponent.

It still doesn't work as a comparison across years. If talent consolidates at the top and the average team has less talent compared to the top than previous seasons than you will see higher o ratings from that team.

There are 354 division 1 teams. When the talent condenses and the power schools naturally take the best players from small schools every year, it makes perfect sense that the efficiency gap between them would grow.
Click to expand...
But it isn't the rating vs the median team (i.e. the #177 team), but the average, and the concentrated talent at the top theoretically pulls up the average just as much as it would if distributed across more teams. You could argue that top teams stash some of that talent on their bench, but NIL is keeping more good players in college for longer, so who knows whether it shifts things one way or the other.
 
#170      
PepeSilvia
wc_illini said:
But it isn't the rating vs the median team (i.e. the #177 team), but the average, and the concentrated talent at the top theoretically pulls up the average just as much as it would if distributed across more teams. You could argue that top teams stash some of that talent on their bench, but NIL is keeping more good players in college for longer, so who knows whether it shifts things one way or the other.
Click to expand...
It's against the average team.

If you have more talent at the top and less at the bottom then you naturally get a wider spread in those efficiency numbers.

So you're far more likely to get higher highs and lowers lows than you would have even a few years ago which naturally leads to higher efficiency ratings which show the lack of parity between teams.

I think this really makes sense when you look at how March madness has transpired recently. Lack of upsets, no real mid major tourney runs, and 3 of the last 4 champions(UConn x2 and Michigan) were never even really challenged by anyone in the tourney.

Kenpom only goes back to 2002 and in the 00s and 10s we really saw mid majors close the talent gap with power schools and really started seeing a lot of upsets and tourney runs from small schools. We watched the first 1-16 upset and 2-15 upsets were becoming increasingly common.

Now with NIL and the transfer portal you have more fringe guys staying in college and mid major guys transferring up which imo has led to the least amount of parity we've seen in the kenpom era. We even kind of have tiers to the power conference level where it really only feels like 3-4 teams are even capable of winning the championship.

I think the landscape is a lot more similar to 70s or 80s when most guys were staying 3 or 4 years and you saw the rise of blue blood programs that would dominate year in year out.
 
Back