Regarding the discussion of bad hiring decisions relating to head football coaches it seems to me that most people understandably focus on the head man, but there are multiple examples indicating that a head guy won't be able to build a winning program unless he can assemble a coaching staff capable of succeeding as a unit. Beckman and Lovie each had some superficial qualities that seemed enticing, but neither assembled a good staff (and they both had their own flaws too). Part of the hiring decision therefore needs to include a deep-dive into whether the candidate has the contacts/personality/reputation to assemble the type of staff that you need to compete in the Big Ten. Josh Whitman took a huge step forward when he hired Bielema (rather than a MAC or NFL coach).
Pregame: Illinois vs Wyoming, Saturday, August 27th, 3:00pm CT, BTN
- Status
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Beckman did hire a good staff, full of guys that have been in the same positions or better at more prominent schools since.
There's an ocean of this pop wisdom about this stuff that goodness knows I've traded in for years. But I think you look at what Brad Underwood has done and it makes the reality of it pretty clear: it's not about doing things differently, it's about doing things better.
Bielema is winding his way through the same endless hedge maze that Lovie and Beckman and Zook and Turner were in.
Whether it works out or not, we will pretend it was preordained all along based on facts we already know. Either way, we're wrong and are fooling ourselves. Forget about on the field, the coaching, recruiting, program development moments that will decide it haven't happened yet. It hangs in the balance.
Seven days. Beat Wyoming.
We most agree, certainly about beating Wyoming in seven days. The only quibble is that even accepting your premise that Beckman's staff included some good young hires (some of whom may be having decent careers since then) it doesn't necessarily negate my view that as a unit they were MAC-level hires who collectively were over their heads in the Big Ten at the time they were working at the U of I.
I think that is a reflection upon Beckman, he saw coaching talent but didn't put any of these guys in a position to succeed whether it was by not letting them do what they were good at to fit his own preference, not giving them the tools to succeed (facilities are night and day from the Beckman era), or the collective ingredients spoiled the stew and the talent assembled weren't on the same page about how to do things.
Judging by the collected evidence, I think that Beckman was a poor communicator which put the good young coaches at a disadvantage because their individual efforts never added together to help the team move forward.
Beckman's other big issue is he didn't change anything about what he was doing at Toledo to coming to Illinois. He recruited the same caliber of player, used his HS Hard !!! coaching style, and didn't adjust to things well when they didn't work just believed in his system.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
Was the assistant staff in over its head, or was it their boss?
I vividly remember that first road game against Arizona State when we literally couldn't even get plays called in from the sidelines. That's on the CEO.
Penn State didn't think Tim Banks was a MAC level hire. Florida didn't think Billy Gonzales was a MAC level hire. Perfect Genius Matt Campbell snapped up Alex Golesh the second he got the opportunity. Did you know Steve Clinkscale is now Michigan's co-DC? (I did not until 30 seconds ago)
And the guy who apparently would have solved everything was a 32 year old who had only been a MAC OC for two years. Oh, but the years since have proved that he's good. Pretty circular logic.
Beckman was a deeply upsetting experience, which created a lot of narrative sparks flying all over the place, that's natural. In the fullness of time with clearer eyes and calmer minds we can take a more empirically rigorous view.
Back to Wyoming…
I think if we take care of business in the first half we’ll be super conservative to close it out and not show much of the playbook. Use Brown sparingly, heavy on McCray carries to control clock and get a win. I think we’re up 17-3 at half and win something like 23-10.
There is a real argument that Indiana and Virginia are the two biggest games of this year save for Northwestern. The goal should be a bowl game and we should beat Wyoming, Chattanooga, NW. To get to 6 we MUST win 1 of IU or UVA. Need to be healthy and ready to go for the quick turnaround @ IU
I think if we take care of business in the first half we’ll be super conservative to close it out and not show much of the playbook. Use Brown sparingly, heavy on McCray carries to control clock and get a win. I think we’re up 17-3 at half and win something like 23-10.
There is a real argument that Indiana and Virginia are the two biggest games of this year save for Northwestern. The goal should be a bowl game and we should beat Wyoming, Chattanooga, NW. To get to 6 we MUST win 1 of IU or UVA. Need to be healthy and ready to go for the quick turnaround @ IU
I guess I don't understand your argument. The point I was trying to make is that as a collective unit (including Beckman of course) fresh from the MAC they were in over their heads at the U of I and not a well-assembled Big Ten coaching staff. Continuing to point out that some of them went on to later success (good for them!) apart from Beckman doesn't seem to move the needle. Anyway, this all started with me trying to contrast that type of staff with the Bielema staff which I believe was better assembled to compete as a unit in the Big Ten.
Actually we did. Beckmans experience was on the defensive side. Toledo's defense sucked. People at the time pointed this out.
Bielema's tenure will be won or lost on his ability to find/coach up lower recuited players to win 6-7 games consistently to eventually be able to sell recruiting the sweetspot high 3 star/mid 4 Iowa n WI level players we need to have a stable program
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
- Bloomington, IL
I'm not very educated on his history, but isn't this what Alvarez established and Bielema continued to succeed with at UW?
Bielema has never recruited high stars. He only has ever had one 5 star in his entire career.
His average at Wisconsin was in the high 40's (48.85 average according to Rivals) and his 2022 here is at 46.
I do not believe Whitman hired him for his recruiting. We hired him for his HC success and experience, his ability to mold mid to high 3 stars into real B1G players, and his high floor.
Is it an area he could improve? Yes, and he's already improved in the state of Illinois, not that it's saying much when you look at what was before under Lovie.
Edit: He averaged 27th at Arkansas but factoring in his record there it's kind of one of those "with a grain of salt" things.
His average at Wisconsin was in the high 40's (48.85 average according to Rivals) and his 2022 here is at 46.
I do not believe Whitman hired him for his recruiting. We hired him for his HC success and experience, his ability to mold mid to high 3 stars into real B1G players, and his high floor.
Is it an area he could improve? Yes, and he's already improved in the state of Illinois, not that it's saying much when you look at what was before under Lovie.
Edit: He averaged 27th at Arkansas but factoring in his record there it's kind of one of those "with a grain of salt" things.
I recently did a lot of research about this very thing ( using composite rankings) and found that BB Recruited better at Wisconsin (by a wide margin). Inflated ratings and class size really help close the gap when comparing Bielema’s Illinois classes to Bielema’s Wisconsin classes. The successful comparison’s would be programs like Wake Forest, Boston College, Northwestern, and K-state.
And this is why you have one play caller……
illini80
- Forgottonia
To be fair, Bielema has only recruited one full class. He signed all of Lovies guys days after he was hired, but he had little choice. We are all hoping for better players, but think about where Wisconsin was when he took over vs where we were. It takes time to climb out of a hole that deep. I hope he can do it and I hope we give him time. I’ll live with 5-7 seasons for a long time if I have to before I give up on him.
He’s recruited almost 2 full classes (22, and 23) and Bielema has already stated he’s basically done with 2023 class. Hill is really the only other recruit on the table that could significantly move the needle in this class. Pointing out where Wisconsin was isn’t really valid when Vandy and Rutgers are on another level of recruiting. Recruiting has really been a mystery to me, because I love the post Tony Peterson staff. We can win 5-7 games with these types of recruits and this staff, but the competition is going to get tougher soon.
ChiefGritty
- Chicago, IL
If he develops to his talent level #1 is gonna have experience on Sundays by 2024.
Craig Bohl has developed a pretty dang good program over at Wyoming, but it seems he won't adapt to the new CFB world as seen with Levi Williams and Isaiah Neyor transferring away. New and improved offense, new QB(who can actually throw the ball it appears), and Ryan Walters at DC gives me vibes of a 27-7 win for the Illini where we just let off the gas after dominating the first 2-3 quarters. Naturally, this means we'll be in a nail-biter and barely escape with a victory, because Illini football. So give me a 24-20 W for the O&B.
Not to oversimplify but, our team has been terrible- 4 winning season since 2000, 4. The last being 2011 which means the kids were recruiting were in grade school the last time we were above .500.
Also, we're coming off one coach who apparently didn't try to connect with HS coaches at all and another who is still out of the profession on the heels of player abuse allegations.
Why is it a surprise that recruiting has been sluggish?
Lower percent returning production for Wyoming here
Interesting that we went from like 115 in May, to 103 in June, to 79 now.
Rutgers has sucked too, yet it doesn’t seem like a barrier for them. Fans point to lovies recruiting as a reason we didn’t succeed, yet now it’s ok. I love our staff, so maybe we can overcome these recruiting shortcomings.
If your plan is to develop lower rated recruits.....then you actually have to have a staff that knows how to develop the fringe kids.
Not sure how we are struggling in recruiting at all.
Lovie had some decent early years recruiting than relied heavily upon the transfer portal because he couldn't land guys the last few years. I tend to leave out the first year of recruiting for the new coach because that first class is mainly locked in when the new coach arrives already(unless guys decommit).
Lovie arrives 2016 (2016 class composite rank was 73 with 24 commits)
Under Lovie
2017 Composite Ranking 46 # of Recruits 27
2018 Composite Ranking 54 # of Recruits 27
2019 Composite Ranking 53 # of Recruits 17
2020 Composite Ranking 88 # of Recruits 13
2021 Composite Ranking 72 # of Recruits 18 (Lovie fired mid-Dec 2020. This class is mainly his with BB adding transfers such as Hart, Sitkowski, Bryant, etc)
Under BB
2022 Composite Ranking 46 # of Recruits 26
2023 Composite Ranking 57 # of Recruits 14
They are comparable the first year. Ranking is around same 2nd year but also look at half the number of recruits to receive that ranking. We had a few guys decommit or this is easily early 40's again. Plus Kicker David Olano is not even rated which brings the overall rating down (top 10 kicker). BB said this class is almost locked up. We still have a shot to add a couple quality recruits.
Main thing I look at is BB has a track record of recruiting, developing and winning for years. Not something I can admit to seeing in this program before.
I agree. Lovie failed on multiple fronts (recruiting, staff, scheme, development, etc). With BB, recruiting has really been his one blemish imo. I’d much rather be keeping up with the lower half of the B1G than bringing up the rear every year. We can overcome some talent deficiencies, but talent matters too.
Last edited:
- Status