Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread (August 2018)

[Ga65]

I just have a problem identifying three players not useful. Seems like it is easier to gamble on highly ranked if you have a solid base. This would be particularly true of bigs where it takes some development. Have to believe we would be better if Black, Ebo, and Finke were still here.

 

[jrichisamazing]

I think it works in theory if you keep the top best half of your roster and circulate the bottom half each year.
That is fine.
If you aren't doing exactly that, and you end up circulating eligible guys at the top like Black, Finke instead and replace them with freshman ... then you might be getting into trouble.

The worrying thing to me is the majority of good, consistent, healthy, programs aren't like this (other than blue bloods losing guys to the NBA). A good chunk of the those guys at the bottom half of the roster should be young guys who are developing and full of potential, learning from good upperclassmen who were in their shoes a couple years prior. Guys like Mark Smith will not feel comfortable and transfer out every now and then. But we need to be keeping the majority of our Mark Smith's. And recruiting needs to be improved so we're not wasting time on guys like Matic Vessel.

 

[Illinibatt]

When Huggins/Martin/Underwood took over at K-State in 2006-2007, they won 23 games their first year.
Martin/Underwood then turned over the entire roster and brought in 8 new guys the next year (sounds familiar?)
And then they went on to a 21 win season.
Included in the group brought in were one-and-done NBA draft picks Beasley and Walker.

Not sure if that demonstrates a winning strategy or not?

 

[SescIllini]

Not a fan of so much turnover, it is a bad look and as a fan I want to support the players over several years.

What happens in South Carolina and West Virginia often will not fly at Illinois. I understand as BU tries to get footing on this program that
transfers will happen. Can defend some of the transfers, but MSmith and Ebo leaving was not a good start. Not sure how much was BUs
doing, likely more the players. But not a pattern you want to see.

 

[UofIChE06]

#19 on 247 and #35 overall. 10/10 crystal balls for West Virginia.

Most of what I have seen is the WVU consensus is outdated. UK seems to be the one to be the most concerned about. Hope that Wiseman commits on 9/7 during his visit because that likely takes UK out of the race

 

[Obelix]

Same concept as many corporations follow. Move up or move out. As long as you're replacing the lesser performers with better performers you're bound to improve.

I really don't care what it "looks" like as long as it's a winning strategy. People should understand it when they sign on, whether in business or basketball.

Which is exactly what many people on this same board had criticized as "Creaning" and were totally against it... or maybe they were totally against it when it just involved a rival, because judging from current responses I believe some of that human sensitivity and player compassion may have faded away.

 

[Emerson Bigguns]

The player turnover on Huggins/Martin/Underwood coaching tree rosters is consistently huge.
More than any other teams in college basketball.
Its an intentional strategy and its not a factor of "rebuilding" a roster, as if it would somehow eventually lessen or stop once the roster is set ...
People just need to get used to it and accept it as reality.
Available scholarships are never going to be a problem.
We won't need to oversign because many players will leave every year.
Every. Single. Year.

This is not a coincidence:
Huggins adds 7 (2011); 3 (2012); 7 (2013); 5 (2014); 4 (2015); 3 (2016); 5 (2017); 6 (2018) - (this does NOT include transfers ... the numbers are actually higher)
Martin adds 6 (2011); 4 (2012); 7 (2013); 4 (2014); 6 (2015); 4 (2016); 5 (2017); 5 (2018) - (this does NOT include transfers ... the numbers are actually higher)
Underwood adds 6 (2013); 6 (2014); 6 (2015); 6 (2016); 6 (2017); 8 (2018) - (this DOES include transfers)

Huggins, Martin, and Underwood all like to push the pace, and press. In order to play that way, you have to push your players hard in practice and in the off-season to build the required endurance. My theory is that a lot of young guys like to watch that kind of basketball, and like the idea of playing at that pace. Then they get into it, and reality sets in... Endless sprints and full court drills aren't fun for everyone.

 

[tpbradley]

#19 on 247 and #35 overall. 10/10 crystal balls for West Virginia.

 

[Obelix]

Huggins, Martin, and Underwood all like to push the pace, and press. In order to play that way, you have to push your players hard in practice and in the off-season to build the required endurance. My theory is that a lot of young guys like to watch that kind of basketball, and like the idea of playing at that pace. Then they get into it, and reality sets in... Endless sprints and full court drills aren't fun for everyone.

Other coaches run aggressive offenses and defenses so I doubt it is the players not liking full court drills and aggressive pace. The truth is Huggins and Martin (I will withhold judgement on BU since it is early) have a certain personality that will always clash with many players. It seems that every time we get a coach, we find new love for the "coaching tree" and the patriarch, similar to Illinois boards falling in love with Keady in the honeymoon of the Weber era.

Personally, I have never been a fan of Huggins' personality, he personified for a long time what was wrong with basketball behavior, including dirty recruiting, rough interactions with players, low respect of academics, and encouraging player behavior on and off the court that went unpunished until his own administration took action. He has relatively calmed down since then (not much other choice) but I am definitely not a fan of Huggins' personality as a coach. Neither have I ever been a fan of Martin, even in coaching searches of the past, both personalities waiting to explode in any minute.

 

[Newman]

Most of what I have seen is the WVU consensus is outdated. UK seems to be the one to be the most concerned about. Hope that Wiseman commits on 9/7 during his visit because that likely takes UK out of the race

I'm not sure if it's outdated or just based on current offers. If UK doesn't end up offering, WVU is the team to beat. Kentucky has the luxury of being able to take their time.

 

[TCTORNADO]

One has to like Huggy's leisure suits. Timeless.

 

[Deleted member 643761]

It seems that every time we get a coach, we find new love for the "coaching tree" and the patriarch, similar to Illinois boards falling in love with Keady in the honeymoon of the Weber era.

I don't recall ever once hearing this from anyone. Not once. In fact, Keady's lack of tournament success had many people concerned about us long term.

 

[Deleted member 29907]

Personally, not a fan of the concept. Not a good look. But, hey if you win, all's well.:thumb:

I would expect Whitman has some input into how much turnover / consistency he would like to project... I wouldn't think this is purely a coach only strategy/method.

 

[Obelix]

I don't recall ever once hearing this from anyone. Not once. In fact, Keady's lack of tournament success had many people concerned about us long term.

That is because you must be a "NewFan" on Illini boards...

When Weber was hired, a very strong "anti-Self" (or rather anti-$elf) sentiment that quickly developed back then on "Illiniboard" (the most popular) and other boards (Scout, Rivals). Bill Self (later to become "Bucknell Bill") became "evil", an incompetent coach who would never win anything, a cheater, a coach who had Illinois on the decline (if I just had a dime for every post mentioning the ND loss...). Most Illini fans greeted Weber with "hope", very few of us had great concern about personality and ability to recruit. Quite a few greeted Weber with relief that it was not Dana Altman (who was wrongly rumored on boards to have agreed to take the UI job). A very pro-Keady and pro-Keady tree sentiment developed throughout the early honeymoon years, supporting not only Weber as a coaching genius due to his Keady training, but praising other members of the tree (e.g., Stallings) and even Illini hirings like Jay Price (yeah... that Jay Price, who was "qualified" and overdue to become a head coach).

When very few of us expressed great concerns with Weber's recruiting failures in the early very good years, the responses back then was that Weber's motion offense and "system" (i.e., great passing, movement) would be able to beat better talent consistently. When this did not happen, it was the famous "it takes 5 years, like Jim Calhoun said, to get the recruiting benefits of the NC." That was the beginning to the end of Illini basketball, what we still pay today. As far as Weber concerns during the golden early years, there were again very few of us who had some great concerns over recruiting and personality. The only one who actually remained 100% consistent from day one claiming Weber was as a terrible UI hire in ALL aspects, was Larue (yeah, I know... you do not know or recall who Larue is... but some of us ol' timers know exactly what I am talking about). That is history for some of us, for others, you can certainly feel free to believe your own revisionist history and VR.

There is an understandable sentiment of hope, which I actually share, but there is a strong "change of position" and later lack of memory sentiment as well, as the whole support of "creaning" if it helps winning (replacing the over-sensitive earlier objections) and the new found affection for Huggins and his tactics indicate.

 

[TCTORNADO]

Proof that the Keady tree was truly loved.

 

[BRucks]

I would expect Whitman has some input into how much turnover / consistency he would like to project... I wouldn't think this is purely a coach only strategy/method.

Whitman must be ok with it because it happened in football and volleyball, as well as men's basketball (all with newly hired Whitman coaches).

 

[Deleted member 29907]

Whitman must be ok with it because it happened in football and volleyball, as well as men's basketball (all with newly hired Whitman coaches).

Time will tell but I think there is a difference with new coaches coming in and moving the program to their style. Once cleaned up, then that is the ongoing period I was referring to, not the initial adjustment - which could be 1 or 2 years to accomplish.

 

[bobbob]

You don't hire Underwood if you aren't ok with a significant amount of constant turnover.

 

[sacraig]

I would expect Whitman has some input into how much turnover / consistency he would like to project... I wouldn't think this is purely a coach only strategy/method.

I would think that a good AD gives his coaches a pretty long leash in terms of how to run their respective programs (within ethical and legal limitations, of course).

 

[Rap73]

Who does anyone on this forum think Underwood "creaned". I believe those that transferred did because they saw lack of playing time in his sytem, with The exception of Finke.

 

[CoalCity]

Who does anyone on this forum think Underwood "creaned". I believe those that transferred did because they saw lack of playing time in his sytem, with The exception of Finke.

So many people on this board and others think that any player that leaves has been "Creaned". That's not how the expression came about. I dont remember the names of the players involved... I'm sure some of the walking encyclopedias can supply that...but the expression came about when a player that had already committed was told his offer was no longer valid (because a better player changed his mind and wanted to come to Indiana but there was no room for him). So Crean told the lesser player he was no longer wanted, hence the term and the bad taste associated with it. Players leaving is not "Creaning". Creaning happens before a kid even gets a chance to play for the coach.

Suggesting that a player might be better off elsewhere is not "Creaning".

 

[Foggy Notion]

To Crean or not to Crean? That is the question.

 

[skyIdub]

Danfucius say when thread get too dirty, must be creaned.

 

[Newman]

I believe those that transferred did because they saw lack of playing time in his sytem, with The exception of Finke.

Almost everyone that left would have gotten significant playing time so that's doubtful.

 

[Deleted member 643761]

That is because you must be a "NewFan" on Illini boards...

When Weber was hired, a very strong "anti-Self" (or rather anti-$elf) sentiment that quickly developed back then on "Illiniboard" (the most popular) and other boards (Scout, Rivals). Bill Self (later to become "Bucknell Bill") became "evil", an incompetent coach who would never win anything, a cheater, a coach who had Illinois on the decline (if I just had a dime for every post mentioning the ND loss...). Most Illini fans greeted Weber with "hope", very few of us had great concern about personality and ability to recruit. Quite a few greeted Weber with relief that it was not Dana Altman (who was wrongly rumored on boards to have agreed to take the UI job). A very pro-Keady and pro-Keady tree sentiment developed throughout the early honeymoon years, supporting not only Weber as a coaching genius due to his Keady training, but praising other members of the tree (e.g., Stallings) and even Illini hirings like Jay Price (yeah... that Jay Price, who was "qualified" and overdue to become a head coach).

When very few of us expressed great concerns with Weber's recruiting failures in the early very good years, the responses back then was that Weber's motion offense and "system" (i.e., great passing, movement) would be able to beat better talent consistently. When this did not happen, it was the famous "it takes 5 years, like Jim Calhoun said, to get the recruiting benefits of the NC." That was the beginning to the end of Illini basketball, what we still pay today. As far as Weber concerns during the golden early years, there were again very few of us who had some great concerns over recruiting and personality. The only one who actually remained 100% consistent from day one claiming Weber was as a terrible UI hire in ALL aspects, was Larue (yeah, I know... you do not know or recall who Larue is... but some of us ol' timers know exactly what I am talking about). That is history for some of us, for others, you can certainly feel free to believe your own revisionist history and VR.

There is an understandable sentiment of hope, which I actually share, but there is a strong "change of position" and later lack of memory sentiment as well, as the whole support of "creaning" if it helps winning (replacing the over-sensitive earlier objections) and the new found affection for Huggins and his tactics indicate.

I've been going to games since late 70s. Following various boards for over a decade. I don't know of anyone who was hoping for Keady II with Weber.

My sense is that you find two or three posters at any given time that take stupid positions and then you assign that to the majority of the board.

It's a special kind of arrogance to think that insights shared by 80% of a group are somehow unique to you.