Illini Football 2023

Status
Not open for further replies.
#253      
Impressed (sorta) with Illini crowd (Eric the Red on Wisconsin form Tapatalk):
We sat at midfield on the Badger bench side of the field, so that's obviously an area that is filled with loyal Illini season ticket holders. I was impressed by how into the game they were for a team that hasn't given them a ton to cheer about. The stadium was the fullest I'd ever seen in my 3-4 trips to Champaign (85/15 split), although we were told that homecoming is "more of a big deal" there because of the fraternities and sororities. The student section (while smaller than UW's), was 80-90% full at kickoff. The Illini fans in our section stood up on every third down, cheered wildly for big plays and they were vocal throughout. Their disagreement with the (obviously correct) targeting call was especially vociferous. It's also interesting that all fan bases are really pretty much the same. As UW was rallying in the 4th quarter, it was an ongoing debate of which team was more likely to !!!! it up, with each set of fans insisting that their team is always the one who "gives it away." I guess the Illini fans were right. 😀 Regardless, I was somewhat impressed by their fans.
My Dad went to Illinois in the 80s (graduated in 85) and was also impressed saying it was one of the best environments he'd seen in Champaign in a while. I have my own issues with the student sections that aren't noticeable unless you're in the NEZ like I am as a student. While student attendance has probably been the best and most consistent I've ever seen it in the last 10 years there are some glaring issues with how it's been run by the student leaders this year that I won't go into detail on rn. While this crowd and others were bigger, I still don't think we've had a crowd top the energy of last year's Iowa game in a very long time. Maybe the UNC sellout in 2016, but I can't speak on that one since I wasn't at the game. Can't say I still don't think the targeting was the right call, but I will say I know they'll always make that call when that hit is on a QB. I have doubts they'd make the same call if Newton had hit a running back or any other position like that. It's enough in the more subjective side of targeting tho that there isn't a single fanbase on the country that wouldn't be upset if the call was made against their team. Something about being in the Big 10 West just makes us all super pessimistic about our football programs, I can't imagine why lol. Sadly we're typically right about us being the ones to give it away. Being somewhat impressed by the fans says a lot for the whole we've been in for really the last 25+ years and especially in the last 10. You go next door for basketball and see what the environment is there, you really see what this fanbase should be capable of if we're ever given something to consistently cheer for again.

I didn't even think about the fact that we don't play again until 2025. Hopefully, the Big 10 will stop scheduling our games in Madison on weekends that I end up being busy on so I can finally make my way up to Madison for a game.
 
#254      

band camp

STL City
Impressed (sorta) with Illini crowd (Eric the Red on Wisconsin form Tapatalk):
We sat at midfield on the Badger bench side of the field, so that's obviously an area that is filled with loyal Illini season ticket holders. I was impressed by how into the game they were for a team that hasn't given them a ton to cheer about. The stadium was the fullest I'd ever seen in my 3-4 trips to Champaign (85/15 split), although we were told that homecoming is "more of a big deal" there because of the fraternities and sororities. The student section (while smaller than UW's), was 80-90% full at kickoff. The Illini fans in our section stood up on every third down, cheered wildly for big plays and they were vocal throughout. Their disagreement with the (obviously correct) targeting call was especially vociferous. It's also interesting that all fan bases are really pretty much the same. As UW was rallying in the 4th quarter, it was an ongoing debate of which team was more likely to !!!! it up, with each set of fans insisting that their team is always the one who "gives it away." I guess the Illini fans were right. 😀 Regardless, I was somewhat impressed by their fans.
It wasn't targeting Ron.
 
#255      
Impressed (sorta) with Illini crowd (Eric the Red on Wisconsin form Tapatalk):
We sat at midfield on the Badger bench side of the field, so that's obviously an area that is filled with loyal Illini season ticket holders. I was impressed by how into the game they were for a team that hasn't given them a ton to cheer about. The stadium was the fullest I'd ever seen in my 3-4 trips to Champaign (85/15 split), although we were told that homecoming is "more of a big deal" there because of the fraternities and sororities. The student section (while smaller than UW's), was 80-90% full at kickoff. The Illini fans in our section stood up on every third down, cheered wildly for big plays and they were vocal throughout. Their disagreement with the (obviously correct) targeting call was especially vociferous. It's also interesting that all fan bases are really pretty much the same. As UW was rallying in the 4th quarter, it was an ongoing debate of which team was more likely to !!!! it up, with each set of fans insisting that their team is always the one who "gives it away." I guess the Illini fans were right. 😀 Regardless, I was somewhat impressed by their fans.
You’re not going to Cong
 
#256      
Sheesh, that’s what happens when you hit the post reply button by mistake and you don’t complete your edit quickly enough.

Anyway, we’re not going to convince the other side either way about that obviously bad call. That said, there’s no question that the game turned on that play, not play on the field, and and fans stayed to the end. And while we were disappointed, this time there was more frustration than disappointment.

Let’s see what happens when we go to Minnesota.
 
#257      
It wasn't targeting Ron.
With how soft they ref the QBs nowadays, especially ones not in orange and blue, the refs will probably call targeting on that hit every time it's done to a QB regardless if it actually fits the actual rules of targeting. That fact does not mean we have to pretend we liked the call obviously.
 
#258      
With how soft they ref the QBs nowadays, especially ones not in orange and blue, the refs will probably call targeting on that hit every time it's done to a QB regardless if it actually fits the actual rules of targeting. That fact does not mean we have to pretend we liked the call obviously.
Yeah, I hated the call because it was a really outstanding play by Newton defeating his man and getting to the QB while he still had the ball. But the minute he dipped his head, he gave the ref the OK to throw the flag. Even with my O&B tinted glasses on and with my Orange Kook-Aid drink in my hand (and mostly gone by that point) the ref was going to throw that flag on just about any player in the nation . . .
 
#259      
Yeah, I hated the call because it was a really outstanding play by Newton defeating his man and getting to the QB while he still had the ball. But the minute he dipped his head, he gave the ref the OK to throw the flag. Even with my O&B tinted glasses on and with my Orange Kook-Aid drink in my hand (and mostly gone by that point) the ref was going to throw that flag on just about any player in the nation . . .
Freudian slip? Been known to have a cup or two of that myself. 😉
 
#263      
With how soft they ref the QBs nowadays, especially ones not in orange and blue, the refs will probably call targeting on that hit every time it's done to a QB regardless if it actually fits the actual rules of targeting. That fact does not mean we have to pretend we liked the call obviously.
Unless it's Brandon Peters. The most blatant targeting ever was reviewed and they decided that it wasn't. He missed the next 2 or was it 3 games with a severe concussion. Iowa thug did it
 
#264      

pruman91

Paducah, Ky
Not at all, it's a more precise description of the mood-altering substance we all imbibe of here on Loyalty!
0000000000000000000000.gif
 
#265      

BillyBob1

Champaign
Unless it's Brandon Peters. The most blatant targeting ever was reviewed and they decided that it wasn't. He missed the next 2 or was it 3 games with a severe concussion. Iowa thug did it
I tried YouTube to find that video with no luck. Does anyone have that?
 
#267      
I agree the refs missed that call on BP. At least should have been roughing the passer even out of the tackle box. A blatant miss.
That's my problem with the rule - inconsistent application. I guarantee that crew received no counsel or training after that non-call and continued on with calling games the following week as usual. It is also very curious this clip cannot be found anywhere; very weird. Brandon also took a hit from a Maryland defensive player (not certain if same season) who launched himself into Brandon contacting his head, again, no call. The rule has to be amended to allow for degrees of penalty. It is ridiculous Johnny is missing 3 quarters for such a questionable call where he neither launched himself or intended to injure the opposing QB, unlike other hits that have been leveled against Illinois QB's since the rule was enacted.

Edit: My mistake, after further review the Maryland player was called for targeting on that play.
 
Last edited:
#268      
The rule has to be amended to allow for degrees of penalty. It is ridiculous Johnny is missing 3 quarters for such a questionable call where he neither launched himself or intended to injure the opposing QB, unlike other hits that have been leveled against Illinois QB's since the rule was enacted.
Did the QB even need to miss the next play?
 
#269      
Unless it's Brandon Peters. The most blatant targeting ever was reviewed and they decided that it wasn't. He missed the next 2 or was it 3 games with a severe concussion. Iowa thug did it
Yeah I said in another comment that it's something that's always called unless you're in orange and blue. Lost track of the amount of times just in the last two years where Divito or Altmyer slid and got nailed by multiple defenders without a flag and when the opponent's QB slides late and gets grazed and the refs can't get their flags out fast enough.
 
#270      

redwingillini11

North Aurora
No bowl projections to report this week.

With Northwestern and Indiana now no longer looking like pushovers, we have perhaps seen the last bowl projection featuring Illinois this year. That could of course change if we beat Minnesota, but we all know that this game is a must win already.

Hopefully if we don't make a bowl this year, we will find a way to be poised to get to 6 wins in the near future, and that 2022 won't be the anomaly.
 
#271      
Yeah, I hated the call because it was a really outstanding play by Newton defeating his man and getting to the QB while he still had the ball. But the minute he dipped his head, he gave the ref the OK to throw the flag. Even with my O&B tinted glasses on and with my Orange Kook-Aid drink in my hand (and mostly gone by that point) the ref was going to throw that flag on just about any player in the nation . . .
The thing is, though, they did not throw a flag for targeting. They threw a flag for roughing the passer. Even though there was no pass occurring. The targeting came afterwards from upstairs.

My thinking is that the reason they won’t rescind the targeting penalty now is because if they did, why exactly was Newton flagged in the first place? A 15 yard personal foul for roughing the ball-carrier, a penalty that does not exist? The whole thing was an officiating debacle that I’m sure the B1G now just hopes will disappear down the memory hole
 
#272      
The thing is, though, they did not throw a flag for targeting. They threw a flag for roughing the passer. Even though there was no pass occurring. The targeting came afterwards from upstairs.

My thinking is that the reason they won’t rescind the targeting penalty now is because if they did, why exactly was Newton flagged in the first place? A 15 yard personal foul for roughing the ball-carrier, a penalty that does not exist? The whole thing was an officiating debacle that I’m sure the B1G now just hopes will disappear down the memory hole
And, sadly, it will. Because it happened to Illinois.
 
#274      

MustangWally

Mayfield
The thing is, though, they did not throw a flag for targeting. They threw a flag for roughing the passer. Even though there was no pass occurring. The targeting came afterwards from upstairs.

My thinking is that the reason they won’t rescind the targeting penalty now is because if they did, why exactly was Newton flagged in the first place? A 15 yard personal foul for roughing the ball-carrier, a penalty that does not exist? The whole thing was an officiating debacle that I’m sure the B1G now just hopes will disappear down the memory hole
Truth
 
Status
Not open for further replies.