Seems like they did that with Lincoln Williams.
Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread
- Status
Noblesville Illini
- Nappanee, IN
Been following Illinois basketball since 1979 and I can’t recall a dating relationship like Mirk’s that drew an otherwise outside recruit towards Illinois. Sure, we had midwestern kids with the girlfriend attending the beloved, but this one’s new to me! If we get Betts, that will be somewhat hilarious! But that’s Mirk in a nutshell!!
A final four sure helped. The sentiment can come back if we don't make F4 this year. /s
Yep. We will have to keep scheduling UConn until we beat them. Hopefully it is this year.
This board had back to back mental breakdowns in wins against PSU on the road and home against Rutgers where we won by 8 and 26 respectively.
So I have little doubt that sentiment would show up long before a final four lol.
I still think the PSU postgame thread might have been peak Illini loyalty embarrassment for me. And I say that with love
For me it was Rutgers.
The game was wrapped up in the first 10 minutes, but the postgame thread was a mess because we “lost the 2nd half.” (led at halftime by 27 and won by 26)
I think the most outraged postgame thread from last year was Nebraska. However, when you lose, outrage is perhaps more justified than the Rutgers or Penn State games.
Penn St had a nice 'close but no cigar' run in the middle of the season... of course we lost our minds beating them by 8 in a road game
I agree with you - both on how insane the forum was, but also I can get it a bit more.
I was frustrated with the Nebraska one because it felt like after the Tennessee and OSU road game, we were rolling a bit. We came out slow at home and let Sandfort get way too comfortable, and we couldn’t quite make it up.
Didn’t help we then had a big ten schedule break and we didn’t really know how good Nebraska was yet
They just made an absurd amount of threes. Those games happen to everybody.
For example, Wagler’s Purdue game. Is it sustainable? No. Is it ever gonna happen again? No. Was it an amazing performance and incredible shooting display on that very day? Yes.
It’s also how Wisconsin beat Michigan. They went 15/33 (46%) and couldn’t miss.
It happens.
It had to be UCLA right?
Were up 33-10 and then let them claw back and take it to OT.
Then didn't even try to deny Dent the ball or make it difficult to get him the ball while on the run and just let him go coast to coast for a layup to win.
Insanely bad way to lose a basketball game and all together to reminiscent of the Jordan Gainey buzzer beater the year before.
Also, it was the 3rd OT loss in 5 games after being on the verge of being a potential one seed before that stretch.
I said the most outraged POSTGAME THREAD.
Not what I think was the worst loss. (It takes a lot for me to be irate at 18-22 year old kids for losing a game; probably hasn’t happened since Penn State)
If you go to the threads, and compare which had the most livid and enraged responses, then yes I do think Nebraska would be at the top.
The most laughable and amusing was Rutgers, because we won that game the same way we would against Tarletan State or smth.
Last edited:
UCLA one also wasn’t fun.
But the Nebraska one was a whole lot of “this is our cieling with Brad” and “bites at the apple aren’t real” and “if you defend Brad, your defend mediocrity and 1 second weekend” bs.
Which admittedly, was always a really annoying and wildly disingenuous tactic that im still not sure what purpose was meant to be served if you’re actually an Illini fan
The thing about UCLA is that all “blown leads” are not created equal.
Yes we were up 33-10, but there was still 30 minutes left in that game. That’s different from say, having that lead at halftime.
For example, against Penn State we blew a 7pt lead in 35 seconds — that’s a lot more repulsive because there’s only 35 seconds LEFT IN THE GAME. (different from a full 30 minutes)
Not saying we should’ve lost, but it’s just a caveat. IMO, don’t give up a layup on that final play and we’re good.
Yes we were up 33-10, but there was still 30 minutes left in that game. That’s different from say, having that lead at halftime.
For example, against Penn State we blew a 7pt lead in 35 seconds — that’s a lot more repulsive because there’s only 35 seconds LEFT IN THE GAME. (different from a full 30 minutes)
Not saying we should’ve lost, but it’s just a caveat. IMO, don’t give up a layup on that final play and we’re good.
Agreed. The Wisconsin losses felt like infinitely bigger groin kicks than UCLA to me
I thought our resiliency to fight back was very good. The offensive rebounding was something to behold.
The final play can't happen though. It's the one moment in the season where I would point to the coaching. Definitely not saying Brad should be fired, but coming out of a timeout, it just can't happen unfold that way.
The dumbest take I personally saw on here wasn’t Nebraska or UCLA or any of the losses.
It was in halftime of the PENN game:
Last edited:
Was the UCLA game the one were Kylan said in postgame something like "I was supposed to stop the ball and didn't, its on me" (paraphrasing)? Am I completely misremembering that? Thought he got stuck behind one of our bigs and Dent blew by the both of them. Now I have to go rewatch it, unfortunately.
EDIT: Just rewatched and I was maybe thinking of the Tenn game the year before. UCLA was Keaton getting screened and Andrej stepped up instead of to the side to deter and Dent went right around him. So we had a guy picking him up (Keaton) and another guy (Andrej) spying to step in if he got around. Defense was as it was drawn up, Keaton got screened out of the play and Andrej got smoked.
EDIT: Just rewatched and I was maybe thinking of the Tenn game the year before. UCLA was Keaton getting screened and Andrej stepped up instead of to the side to deter and Dent went right around him. So we had a guy picking him up (Keaton) and another guy (Andrej) spying to step in if he got around. Defense was as it was drawn up, Keaton got screened out of the play and Andrej got smoked.
Last edited:
This absurd foul called on Z the possession before on the clean block played a huge part in that calamity too.
He was terrified to pick up a foul on another shot contest
I mean 39.3 is pretty good... but 43.2 & 44.6? That's insane.
We needed to put someone on the ball. The play was danger the moment Dent caught it.
That pass is WAY to casual and easy.
True. This is how the top 5 looked the year prior:
Maybe, but this was the unhinged post from the Nebraska thread:
Last edited:
Keaton was on the ball. He got screened out of the play and Andrej takes a bad route/angle to be able to deter. LOL why wouldn't there be someone on the ball?
Too late to edit my post above, but maybe the question was why we didn't have someone guarding the inbounder? Easy answer is it gives you a 5-on-4 advantage, defensively.
But, I think it was probably a given that Dent was going to be quick enough to actually get the ball regardless. So, if you have a guy guarding the inbounder and another that's going to get screened out of the play immediately on the inbound, it leaves you with basically 3 guys who can feasibly defend at the other end where the important stuff is going to happen.
What I would've liked to see is just have two guys on Dent from the get go and make someone else run it up the court instead.
EDIT: See the post above... my guess was correct. Putting someone on the inbounder is just one less guy to defend downcourt. There was no way Dent wasn't getting the ball (unless we just put two guys on him from the get go, then the ball probably goes to Perry instead).
But, I think it was probably a given that Dent was going to be quick enough to actually get the ball regardless. So, if you have a guy guarding the inbounder and another that's going to get screened out of the play immediately on the inbound, it leaves you with basically 3 guys who can feasibly defend at the other end where the important stuff is going to happen.
What I would've liked to see is just have two guys on Dent from the get go and make someone else run it up the court instead.
EDIT: See the post above... my guess was correct. Putting someone on the inbounder is just one less guy to defend downcourt. There was no way Dent wasn't getting the ball (unless we just put two guys on him from the get go, then the ball probably goes to Perry instead).
Last edited:
- Status