Illinois Basketball Historic Standards

#27      

Fighter of the Nightman

Fighter of the Nightman
Chicago, IL
Fighter of the Nightman
Love this analysis, and thanks for updating it! I think these are two very biased and subjective points I would like to make:

- Anything before the 3-pointer is something we should be proud of but not really something that says a whole lot about our "modern" program's ceiling. Conversely, I do still think results during the mid- to late 1980s and 1990s can give a bump in prestige for a program like Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, etc. as recruits visit and we advertise that history.
- It's worth looking at when this program was objectively "healthy," IMO. I think it's MORE than fair to say we would have kept humming along at a similar level to where we are now if not for the Bruce Pearl incident ... that set us back for a few years in the 1990s, but we rebounded relatively quickly with a super impressive hiring of Lon Kruger from Florida, and we were winning a Big Ten Championship by 1998 and replacing Kruger with Bill Self by 2000. In this same sense, Mike Thomas' hiring of John Groce is just NOT indicative of the ceiling or prestige of this program (as you, of course, noted!).

So my subjective belief that I also believe is backed up by the data is that if this program is in competent hands - both at the AD and head coaching level - it is one of the most self-sustaining in the nation. Not many programs can say that 3 out of the last 4 head coaches have gotten a #1 seed, 3 out of the last 4 have made the Elite Eight or beyond and 5 out of the last 6 have won at least one Big Ten championship. Given the fan support, donor money, facilities, instate recruiting footprint, etc., it's just not that hard to win here!
 
#28      

Roundball Sage

R
Roundball Sage
With all due respect to the history of the Illini...

The Illini program should strive to exceed its historical standards. While U of I has a great legacy that others would love to have and has enjoyed a high level of success in certain eras... that still needs to reach to a higher level... the National Championship-type standard. That standard is not one born of arrogance or entitlement but of the desire to be the best. Period. And doing so the 'right way'.

For Illinois and Illini fans... it should not be satisfying to contend in the Big Ten and win a game or two in the Dance. The standard should be the same as it is for the boiler-plate Blue Bloods... Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, etc. That’s the high air where the Illini should be dwelling.

Hopefully, the great restoration of the Illini roundball program that has occurred under Coach Underwood and the brilliant Illini AD has set the table to launch the Illini to this highest-level standard for the long future. The taste we all got of the Sweet Sixteen this time around should give everyone involved the incentive to taste this Sweetness and beyond every year.

This great history needs more really big shiny things.
 
#29      

MurphysBurger

M
MurphysBurger
@21ChampaignSt @Navy_illini what about points for a certain length home court winning streak?

what Ioved about those 2000s teams was that they were impossible to beat at home. the 2020s a home loss happens quite frequently and I think parity has nothing to do with that.
 
#30      

IlliniFan42

IlliniFan42
IlliniFan42
I think the point of this sort of post is to show that people shouldn't call for Underwood's head as long as we're consistently making the tournament. We don't have the history to demand a Final Four appearance every year like real blue bloods. Our court is dedicated to a long-tenured pretty good coach who generally did fine in the regular season and bombed in the tournament, who took us to the Final Four once in twenty years.
 
#31      

lstewart53x3

lstewart53x3
Scottsdale, Arizona
lstewart53x3
IlliniFan42 said:
I think the point of this sort of post is to show that people shouldn't call for Underwood's head as long as we're consistently making the tournament. We don't have the history to demand a Final Four appearance every year like real blue bloods. Our court is dedicated to a long-tenured pretty good coach who generally did fine in the regular season and bombed in the tournament, who took us to the Final Four once in twenty years.
Click to expand...
No fans, even fans of blue bloods, can demand a final four every year. Over the past 5 years, only one team has made more than one Final Four, UConn (x2).

Kentucky, with annual top 10 recruiting classes, hasn’t made a Final Four since 2015.

Any fan who is upset with the job Brad has done here is a moron.
 
#32      

illini510

I
illini510
Another thing about the 2001 team being better than the 2024 team: That 2001 team won 6 games against top 25 opponents and was an even deeper team than this year's squad was. Not all Elite 8 teams are created equal and not all Illini Elite 8 teams are created equal either. That's not to take away from what this team did but it had a slightly different feel from that 2001 team. This team could never beat the top 10 upper echelon teams other than Iowa St. I believe had it not been for the Iowa St win, people would have looked at the Sweet 16 appearance differently.
 
#33      

21ChampaignSt

21ChampaignSt
21ChampaignSt
IlliniFan42 said:
I think the point of this sort of post is to show that people shouldn't call for Underwood's head as long as we're consistently making the tournament. We don't have the history to demand a Final Four appearance every year like real blue bloods. Our court is dedicated to a long-tenured pretty good coach who generally did fine in the regular season and bombed in the tournament, who took us to the Final Four once in twenty years.
Click to expand...
To an extent. Be a top 25 team most of the year, make the tournament, and advance to the second round is a safe baseline, IMO. But that can't be all we ever do. We need to exceed those standards every few years. Of course, there will be years where we fall short as well.

We have a really strong history which should lead to lofty expectations and high standards. No reason to shy away from that. BU doesn't.

*I don't have a strong opinion on how often we should be in the Final Four. I think once every 30 years is probably not good enough. But I'm not sure how many more than that we should reasonably expect? Once every 15 years? Not many programs can get there on any kind of consistent basis.
 
#34      

Fighter of the Nightman

Fighter of the Nightman
Chicago, IL
Fighter of the Nightman
lstewart53x3 said:
No fans, even fans of blue bloods, can demand a final four every year. Over the past 5 years, only one team has made more than one Final Four, UConn (x2).

Kentucky, with annual top 10 recruiting classes, hasn’t made a Final Four since 2015.

Any fan who is upset with the job Brad has done here is a moron.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I do think it's important to balance two competing ideas here, both of which have a kernel of truth but both of which I disagree with:

1. We should simply be happy with being an NCAA Tournament team every year in and of itself. Put another way, being a #4, #8, #7 and #6 seed over four seasons and never getting past the Second Round or something is A-okay simply because we were a part of March Madness. That is the expectation at a Minnesota or Wake Forest, IMO.

2. We practically deserve some type of consistently elite product ala the Blue Bloods, even though it took them decades to amass the "infrastructure" to consistently reload like that.

I think Illini fans should reasonably expect something in the middle over a 10-year time period. I think Underwood has proven what I already believed - that the 1980s Henson, Self and early Weber years weren't (two separate) "Golden Age" flukes. We CAN expect that as a program ... there's too much going for us to settle for 2013-esque results consistently. Looking at our modern history and trying to adjust for a "normal," I would give these three vague, long-term expectations:

1. Getting a "bad" seed (let's say #7 or above) in the NCAA Tournament should at least be somewhat rare. Missing the NCAA Tournament should be exceedingly rare. Looking at these stretches...
---> 1A. From 1981 to 1990, we made the NCAAT 9 out of 10 years. Our seeds were #4, #7, #2, #3, #4, #3, #3, #1 and #5.
---> 1B. From 1998 to 2007, we made the NCAAT 9 out of 10 years. Our seeds were #4, #1, #4, #4, #5, #1, #4 and #12.
---> 1C. From 2020 to 2024, we would have made the NCAAT in 5 out of 5 years. Our 2020 seed likely would have been a #6 or so, and our other seeds were #1, #4, #9 and #3.

I think those are "great" stretches that also meet reasonable expectations. We were almost always in the Tournament, we had a "good" seed the majority of the time and occasionally we would have a "special" team that got a #3 seed or above.

2. We should be in the top third of the Big Ten almost every year. We should compete for a Big Ten championship of some kind (regular season or BTT) fairly regularly, acknowledging that actually winning either is tough and often won't happen.
---> 2A. From 1981 to 1990, we only won one Big Ten championship. However, we were consistently near the top of the league.
---> 2B. From 1998 to 2007, we won FIVE Big Ten championships and 2 BTT championships. In many of the years we did not win the Big Ten, we were in second (e.g., 2003 and 2006). In many of the years we did not win the BTT, we made the championship game (e.g., 1999, 2000 and 2004). That is probably an unrealistically great stretch in-conference.
---> 2C. From 2020 to 2024, we won 1.5*** Big Ten championships, and we finished in second 3 times. We won 2 BTT championships.

I think conference championships will fluctuate with unbalanced schedules and the strength of the league, but the key here is COMPETING for them.

3. We should advance past the Second Round at least 50% of the time that we have a top 4 seed. If you have a #3 seed or above, the Sweet Sixteen is the expectation ... if you have a #4 or #5 seed, it's sort of a crapshoot, but you should win those half the time in theory.

Anything beyond Sweet Sixteens should ALWAYS be treated as "icing" on the cake ... but over a long stretch of having consistently top 20 teams, you should get that "icing" every once in a while.
 
#35      

illinistephen

I
illinistephen
Love the analysis and discussion. My view is this:
There are 11 coaches with 4 or more career final fours with at least 1 of them being after 2001. Who we want to emulate. What I notice about these coaches is that 10 out of 11 have had a 10 year or longer continuous stretch in their careers with a regular season conference winning percentage over 70%. The only exception to this is Boeheim whose best stretch over 10 years was winning 69%. The fact that all 11 of these coaches have won a national championship hasn't been a fluke. The commonality of the elite programs IMO is being really really good in the regular season, getting a high seed practically every year, and making deep runs every few years.
BU winning 69% of his conference games over the last 5 years, equaling Boeheim's best run although at half the timespan, is at the cusp of being in the elite discussion, where winning ~70% of your conference games puts the floor of your program at Bo Ryan, Matt Painter, or Rick Barnes levels.
Illinois has had two 10 year runs, from 1981-1990 and 1997-2006 where they won 67% and 69% of conference games respectively. Which I think is a fair place to set base expectations. Drop too much below this level and you know your HC isn't elite and you need an upgrade. Do just a tiny bit better and you really have an elite program.
 
#36      

IlliniFan42

IlliniFan42
IlliniFan42
With the addition of the Pac-12 teams, each team's schedule should be more balanced as the conference slate is staying at 20 games. The only wrinkle is the three teams we play twice.
 
#37      

Zorak

Zorak
Naperville
Zorak
Roundball Sage said:
With all due respect to the history of the Illini...

The Illini program should strive to exceed its historical standards. While U of I has a great legacy that others would love to have and has enjoyed a high level of success in certain eras... that still needs to reach to a higher level... the National Championship-type standard. That standard is not one born of arrogance or entitlement but of the desire to be the best. Period. And doing so the 'right way'.

For Illinois and Illini fans... it should not be satisfying to contend in the Big Ten and win a game or two in the Dance. The standard should be the same as it is for the boiler-plate Blue Bloods... Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina, etc. That’s the high air where the Illini should be dwelling.

Hopefully, the great restoration of the Illini roundball program that has occurred under Coach Underwood and the brilliant Illini AD has set the table to launch the Illini to this highest-level standard for the long future. The taste we all got of the Sweet Sixteen this time around should give everyone involved the incentive to taste this Sweetness and beyond every year.

This great history needs more really big shiny things.
Click to expand...
Point taken, but if you think Brad Underwood isn't trying to compete for a national championship, you're crazy. This year's team got damn close
 
#38      

Champaignheat

C
Champaignheat
illini510 said:
Another thing about the 2001 team being better than the 2024 team: That 2001 team won 6 games against top 25 opponents and was an even deeper team than this year's squad was. Not all Elite 8 teams are created equal and not all Illini Elite 8 teams are created equal either. That's not to take away from what this team did but it had a slightly different feel from that 2001 team. This team could never beat the top 10 upper echelon teams other than Iowa St. I believe had it not been for the Iowa St win, people would have looked at the Sweet 16 appearance differently.
Click to expand...
That team also has Dee, James & Deron (on the team for three years), Roger and Luther (on the team for 4 years).

Plus additional 1, 2 and 3 year players. Much more continuity than this team. This team came together very quickly relatively speaking.
 
#40      

Grandpa

G
Grandpa
Fighter of the Nightman said:
Yes, but I do think it's important to balance two competing ideas here, both of which have a kernel of truth but both of which I disagree with:

1. We should simply be happy with being an NCAA Tournament team every year in and of itself. Put another way, being a #4, #8, #7 and #6 seed over four seasons and never getting past the Second Round or something is A-okay simply because we were a part of March Madness. That is the expectation at a Minnesota or Wake Forest, IMO.

2. We practically deserve some type of consistently elite product ala the Blue Bloods, even though it took them decades to amass the "infrastructure" to consistently reload like that.

I think Illini fans should reasonably expect something in the middle over a 10-year time period. I think Underwood has proven what I already believed - that the 1980s Henson, Self and early Weber years weren't (two separate) "Golden Age" flukes. We CAN expect that as a program ... there's too much going for us to settle for 2013-esque results consistently. Looking at our modern history and trying to adjust for a "normal," I would give these three vague, long-term expectations:

1. Getting a "bad" seed (let's say #7 or above) in the NCAA Tournament should at least be somewhat rare. Missing the NCAA Tournament should be exceedingly rare. Looking at these stretches...
---> 1A. From 1981 to 1990, we made the NCAAT 9 out of 10 years. Our seeds were #4, #7, #2, #3, #4, #3, #3, #1 and #5.
---> 1B. From 1998 to 2007, we made the NCAAT 9 out of 10 years. Our seeds were #4, #1, #4, #4, #5, #1, #4 and #12.
---> 1C. From 2020 to 2024, we would have made the NCAAT in 5 out of 5 years. Our 2020 seed likely would have been a #6 or so, and our other seeds were #1, #4, #9 and #3.

I think those are "great" stretches that also meet reasonable expectations. We were almost always in the Tournament, we had a "good" seed the majority of the time and occasionally we would have a "special" team that got a #3 seed or above.

2. We should be in the top third of the Big Ten almost every year. We should compete for a Big Ten championship of some kind (regular season or BTT) fairly regularly, acknowledging that actually winning either is tough and often won't happen.
---> 2A. From 1981 to 1990, we only won one Big Ten championship. However, we were consistently near the top of the league.
---> 2B. From 1998 to 2007, we won FIVE Big Ten championships and 2 BTT championships. In many of the years we did not win the Big Ten, we were in second (e.g., 2003 and 2006). In many of the years we did not win the BTT, we made the championship game (e.g., 1999, 2000 and 2004). That is probably an unrealistically great stretch in-conference.
---> 2C. From 2020 to 2024, we won 1.5*** Big Ten championships, and we finished in second 3 times. We won 2 BTT championships.

I think conference championships will fluctuate with unbalanced schedules and the strength of the league, but the key here is COMPETING for them.

3. We should advance past the Second Round at least 50% of the time that we have a top 4 seed. If you have a #3 seed or above, the Sweet Sixteen is the expectation ... if you have a #4 or #5 seed, it's sort of a crapshoot, but you should win those half the time in theory.

Anything beyond Sweet Sixteens should ALWAYS be treated as "icing" on the cake ... but over a long stretch of having consistently top 20 teams, you should get that "icing" every once in a while.
Click to expand...

I guess you have to click it
 
#41      

illini510

I
illini510
Champaignheat said:
That team also has Dee, James & Deron (on the team for three years), Roger and Luther (on the team for 4 years).

Plus additional 1, 2 and 3 year players. Much more continuity than this team. This team came together very quickly relatively speaking.
Click to expand...
No, the 2001 team didn't have Dee, Deron, and Luther. The 2000-2001 team had Frank Williams, Brian Cook, Marcus Griffin, Sergio McClain, Sean Harrington, Corey Bradford, Damir Krupalija, and Robert Archibald.

I believe Luther and Roger came the following year?
 
#43      

Champaignheat

C
Champaignheat
I agree about 2001 being better than this years team. I would probably rank the teams we have had in this order.
1. 1989
2. 2001
3. 2005
4. 2024

Sorry, I didn't pay close enough attention to him speaking about 2001 above.

That team was almost (or more) experienced together than 2005. McClain 4 years, Bradford, Archibald, Krupalija (all three years) Marcus (a senior) and Harrington 2 years and Williams one year (although had played with McClain and Griffin for three years in high school and Brian Cook a high school All-American..
 
#44      

illini510

I
illini510
How is it worthless? They came up short vs Purdue twice, Marquette, and Tennessee, and UConn. Those are/were all top 10 teams. Prior to Iowa St, they couldn't beat any of the upper echelon teams in the country. Their best win during the season was Florida Atlantic who fell to an 8 seed and that was a generous seed for them.

Iowa St win proved that they could get a win against an elite team. When you do an eye test. would we rather see Iowa St among the wins over Morehead St and Duquesne on the tourney resume or do you think people would've been satisfied with just Morehead St and Duquesne? If you say the latter, you are kidding yourself
 
#45      

fatboyslim

F
fatboyslim
Champaignheat said:
I agree about 2001 being better than this years team. I would probably rank the teams we have had in this order.
1. 1989
2. 2001
3. 2005
4. 2024

Sorry, I didn't pay close enough attention to him speaking about 2001 above.

That team was almost (or more) experienced together than 2005. McClain 4 years, Bradford, Archibald, Krupalija (all three years) Marcus (a senior) and Harrington 2 years and Williams one year (although had played with McClain and Griffin for three years in high school and Brian Cook a high school All-American..
Click to expand...
2001 better than 2005? That's definitely a something
 
#46      

Champaignheat

C
Champaignheat
I think they were deeper.

Matchups?

F. Williams vs D. Williams
Bradford vs Brown
McClain vs Head
Cook vs Powell
Griffin vs Augustine

Bench (this is why I think 2001 over 2005)

Krupalija vs Ingram
Archibald vs Pruitt
Harrington vs McBride
Johnson vs Carter
 
#47      

Calvin

C
Calvin
fatboyslim said:
2001 better than 2005? That's definitely a something
Click to expand...

That makes no sense. And as good as the 89 team was, it's really hard to argue they were better than 2005. 05 went to a S16 the year prior, and earned the #1 ranking by playing and destroying the #1 ranked Wake Forest team. They kept that ranking throughout the entire rest of the season, and didn't even lose it when they finally lost their last regular season game on a buzzer beater. I think only one other team in history did that. What they did in the post-season was a bucket and a couple fouls shy of historic (and the road to the FF had a historic comeback). If you watched the 89 team, you could make the case based on the eye test, but probably not otherwise.

If I were to come up with a prestige system, it would count in-season rankings in tiers (Maybe tiers for #1, top5, top10, and top25). Another difficult thing to capture is how much more the regular season meant back in the day. Over time, the spectacle of the NCAA tournament shifted to be more and more important, but I'm not sure you can capture that shift when looking backwards over a long period.

It's a fun discussion. Lotta memories for anyone who's followed Illinois for a long time. So many great players too. On top of the supremely talented guys there are a lotta guys who were great in different ways and meant a lot to the program.
 
#48      

fuggles

F
fuggles
Calvin said:
That makes no sense. And as good as the 89 team was, it's really hard to argue they were better than 2005. 05 went to a S16 the year prior, and earned the #1 ranking by playing and destroying the #1 ranked Wake Forest team. They kept that ranking throughout the entire rest of the season, and didn't even lose it when they finally lost their last regular season game on a buzzer beater. I think only one other team in history did that. What they did in the post-season was a bucket and a couple fouls shy of historic (and the road to the FF had a historic comeback). If you watched the 89 team, you could make the case based on the eye test, but probably not otherwise.

If I were to come up with a prestige system, it would count in-season rankings in tiers (Maybe tiers for #1, top5, top10, and top25). Another difficult thing to capture is how much more the regular season meant back in the day. Over time, the spectacle of the NCAA tournament shifted to be more and more important, but I'm not sure you can capture that shift when looking backwards over a long period.

It's a fun discussion. Lotta memories for anyone who's followed Illinois for a long time. So many great players too. On top of the supremely talented guys there are a lotta guys who were great in different ways and meant a lot to the program.
Click to expand...
The 89 team lost Kendal Gill to a foot injury for 12 games. Otherwise they would have run the table undefeated until the final 4. They were clearly the best team in American in 1989. The 05 team was not.
 
#49      

fatboyslim

F
fatboyslim
fuggles said:
The 89 team lost Kendal Gill to a foot injury for 12 games. Otherwise they would have run the table undefeated until the final 4. They were clearly the best team in American in 1989. The 05 team was not.
Click to expand...
No Way Wtf GIF by Harlem
 
#50      

Calvin

C
Calvin
fuggles said:
The 89 team lost Kendal Gill to a foot injury for 12 games. Otherwise they would have run the table undefeated until the final 4. They were clearly the best team in American in 1989. The 05 team was not.
Click to expand...

It's not that far-fetched. I have a lot of admiration for that team, being on the sideline for the other-worldly Georgia Tech comeback that brought them the #1 ranking. Most nuts game I've ever been to. And the roster was loaded, arguably moreso than 2005. I get why people who watched both teams have the debate.