Post by SouthpawPost by CricketwallahIts different doing well in the Big Ten when the league as a
whole is "down", than when its doing well, however. Thats
The Big Ten has been "down" only the last two years actually. Gene
Keady himself claimed that it is not "down" at all, during his
farewell. Only last year did the Big Ten only contribute 3 teams to the
NCAA tourney. Otherwise, every year it has been contributing at least
five. This year also there are five Big Ten teams in the Big Dance.
I disagree. Its not just about sending teams to the tournament,
its also how they do there. Personally I havent been "happy"
with the Big 10 performance in the tourney in ages - am hoping
that changes this year, but even with 5 teams Iam not particularly
hopeful. Only 1 is a real contender, and that to me by itself
shows the conference is down.
Post by SouthpawPost by Cricketwallahwhy the perception IMHO is that Illinois hasnt been doing
*that* well, as it appears from above.
And nobody should ever laugh at Gene Keady. He did well with
a Purdue team (where its a lot harder to recruit than in
Illinois, not having a big obvious Chicago-connection which
produces huge numbers of great HS players every year)
Heh. Chicago is as close to Illinois as it is to Purdue. Maybe even a
couple of miles closer, actually. Most athletes get scholarships, so
there's hardly any out-of-state tuition issues. Moreover, folks in
Indiana seem to me to be always boasting about the popularity of
basketball in their state and stuff. They're always boasting about
their basketball traditions. The fact that IU and Purdue were doing so
well could only have helped recruitment.
Youre not serious, surely? :-) Being "as close" means nothing -
Illinois is the home-state team. Yesterday on the news the
Illinois "getting ready" for the game was the #1 sports
headline, even ahead of the Bulls actual game in their push
for their first playoffs in a too many years. Purdue, in its
*best* years, wouldnt get any such recognition - never a
mention, hardly. Its not seen as "our" team. Illinois is,
even the local schools are, even places like NIU and SIU
get reports (as local state schools), heck when a team like
Valpo does well it gets reported on as a "close enough"
team (as does ND on a few occasions). But basically never
Purdue, whether they do well in basketball or football.
Illinois games get televised far oftener here too, and every
game is on local radio (with discussions afterwards etc, theyre
on the Score, the local sports station). Distance etc mean
nothing in that respect. Any Chicago kid (and there are a
lot of good ones over the years) prefer the home teams, some
even go to UIC if they cant go to UIUC (thus 2/3 really good
players, Sherell Ford etc a few yaers ago, went to UIC and
turned it into a good enough team to make the NCAA's for
a couple years too; Depaul has had this happen as well in
the past). Certainly not Purdue - its in bloody Indiana
for crying out loud, who wants to go *there*? :-)
Post by SouthpawIn fact, Keady was a poor recruiter, and that's why they haven't been
able to make full use of the Chicago connection. That's one of the
reasons why some people at Purdue weren't entirely unhappy to see him
leave, in fact. A poor recruiter as such, further debilitated by age.
The best thing about the replacement, according to Purdue's campus
paper, is that he's a "relentless recruiter". (Their words.)
Matt Painter, yes, he did a good job before at SIU, but lets
see how he does here. Keady could never recruit that well and
I think Painter wont do *that* well in recruiting either - but
he could still coach, well enough to do terrifically in the
Big 10 for several years (and I dont even like the guy
much).
Post by Southpaw- and
Post by Cricketwallahhe won most of his 6 titles when the Big Ten was much better
than it has been lately. Those were the days when the Big
Ten schools were regularly contenders for national titles
and often did very well in the NCAA, and their graduates
often did very well in the NBA too. (Indiana, in the years
that Keady won his titles, won no less than *3* national
championships, they were *that* good - winning a Big Ten
title by actually beating Indiana in those days was really
a heck of an achievement. Illinois didnt do it very much
either - you'll note that good ole Lou-Do was certified
as a dead-set legend by Illinois this year, they even named
a bunch of things after him etc, and he had what, like 1
Big Ten title or something while he had so many "great years"
at Illinois?)
Lou Henson. He definitely had more than just one Big Ten title. 1984
and 1989, for sure. Maybe others. He had only one Final Four
appearance
Post by Southpawbut that's one more than Keady. He had 14 seasons with 19+ wins in the
20 he coached at Illinois. Keady had 14 in the 25 he coached at Purdue.
Yes, always called Henson lou-do (mostly because we all said
he wore a toupee - still remember sitting 2 rows back from
the Illinois bench and chanting "Hey Lou, Nice Do" for 5
straight minutes when he came out at the start of the game,
until he turned and grinned at all of us :-) I thought he
had only 1 "untied" title win? Was one of the above tied?
Purdue made the Final Four in 1980 - before my time, but
cant quite remember if it was right before Keady or just
after he arrived (he's been there like 25 years now). Also,
BTW, Keady's Purdue sides, without huge talent, won 3
consecutive Big 10 titles in the 1990s (1994, 1995, 1996),
something thats only happened like twice in history I
think. (Personally I dont think this was *huge* because to
me the conference was already going down a bit by then, more
so than the 80s, but still it was quite an achievement in
those days, more than it would be today :-) Keady also
won 7 Big 10 Coach of the Year awards IIRC, a record still
I think.
Post by SouthpawLet's even assume the Big Ten was competitive then and it isn't now.
Still, on the national level, Keady's teams reached the Sweet 16s 5
times in his 25 years. Illinois has done it 4 times in the last 6, and
look set to do it again this year.
Yes, thsi was always considered teh big hole in Keady's record,
even though he had good teams in the 90s they just werent very
high on talent IMHO.
Post by SouthpawPost by Cricketwallah(Note, BTW, that it was when Keady was just about starting
to coach in the Big 10 that Magic Johnson was the best
player in the Big Ten. Who is the best player today? Dee
Brown? Who will be lucky if has 1/16th the career that Magic
had in the pros.
Firstly, Magic Johnson joined the NBA three years before Keady first
coached Purdue. And he's just one guy. Nobody ever claimed that
Illinois has ATG players in their ranks. Indeed, not a single player
from Illinois would make the first two all-star national teams IMO. And
YET we're #1 nationally. The big deal about Illinois has been
teamwork
Post by Southpawamong the three guards. (Super-corny slogans like, "There's no I in
team" abound on campus here, BTW.) There are no Emeka Okafors, Chris
Pauls, Salim Stoudamires, etc., and that's the main feature of this
team.
No, I know. But a program often becomes heralded by getting to
Final Fours etc - else it isnt talked of much. And the second
way is by having really good pros - then, even if they didnt
do much in their time in the NCAA's, the program gets some
of the reflected credit, that sort of thing. Illinois and
Purdue, neither of them have really gotten huge profiles
for that reason in the past longish time (OTOH, Indiana was
huge with 3 national titles and a few final fours in the past
25 years; MSU same, with a few titles; Michigan had basically
no titles anywhere but produced NBA pros often and so got
reflected credit etc. There was a time people felt Duke was
unable to produce good pros - but they won so much at the
NCAA's that they got lots of credit anyway). Its sort of like
cricket in some ways - Bombay has no players in the national
side, but people still give it credit cos we've won Ranji
titles in the past few years. Delhi has done nothing, repeatedly,
for a few years - but people give it plenty of credit cos they
have Sehwag, Chopra, Gambhir, Nehra etc. Same with Punjab,
not done much until this year - but Yuvraj, Mongia, Harby
etc, and people say "arre, bahut player aa rahe hain hamare
Punjab se". Railways has done fine but has no profile most
of the time (everyone forgets Bangar, everything thinks
Murali Karthik is from TN, and then gets reminded he's
from Delhi :-) The Gujaratis insist theyre producing everyone
too - Parthiv, Irfan, Zaheer, Munaf etc (you cant have Munaf
*and* Zaheer, but they do :-)
Post by SouthpawThe Big Ten quality was just better in
Post by Cricketwallahthe old days - a fair few national titles, a few national
finals losses, lots of Final Four teams etc. That hasnt
really been the case in the past few years).
Note that the Big Ten has had at least one team in the Final Four in
all years from 1999-2002. (I started following NCAA hoops only in
'98-9.) Often 2-3 teams in the Elite Eight in those years. Michigan
State won the whole thing in 2000. Only in 2003 and 2004 has the Big
Ten failed to produce a national-title contender.
Overall, in the last 7 years, the Big Ten have not been that much
weaker than they were in Keady's heyday. 2003 and 2004 have been down
years, yes, but before that it wasn't so bad.
In the 1980s the Big Ten won *three* national titles - and
twice had *two* teams in the Final Four. Even int he early
1990s they kept doing really well - Michigan reached the
Title Game twice in a row (after winning the whole thing
in 1989). We used to legitimately argue that our conference
was *the* best in the country, better than the ACC - havent
dared to make *that* argument in years (this year we will
have, at most, 1 Final Four team; 1 real contender I think.
The ACC, their optimists at least, think they could, with
the right breaks, have *3* in the Final Four - even if it
doesnt work out, thats how many real contenders they have).
The 1990s were a bit down to start with - still doing well
enough, still many Final Four appearances but not many
titles. The 2000s have only really had MSU, IMHO - Wisconsin
made the Final Four once too, but it was a surprising
year; and Indiana shocked everyone by going all the way to
the title game a couple years ago, but was not a consistently
good team even in that year itself IMHO. MSU made the Final
Four 3 consecutive times in this period - they were the one
standout IMHO, unlike in the past (when Bharat talks of
not doing well since 1989... MSU note has once had 3 straight
Final Four appearances including a title, Michigan has
back-to-back Title Game appearances, Indiana has a couple
of Final Fours since etc, and this is all from the same
conference. That ends up being remembered a whole lot more
than 3 or 4 Sweet Sixteens in a row, with no Final Fours
in the end).
Post by SouthpawPost by CricketwallahPost by Southpawreached the Big Ten tournament semis 6 straight times now, which I
believe is a unique achievement. In the last 7 years we've
Iam sure it is. Primarily because the Big Ten Tournament only
started about 7 years ago or so :-)
Yes, and it's been around for the same amount of time for all the teams
in the Big Ten. Giving them all equal opportunity to do what Illinois
has done - what a concept, indeed!
Yes yes, but to be top 4 out of 11 teams is how good, in
the end? :-) Especially when the whole conference is down
in general, and a couple teams basically suck anyway? :-)
Post by SouthpawThe old days were the
Post by Cricketwallah"pure" days - when all you had was a regular season, and
you actually had to earn a title by being consistent against
good teams (what a concept).
Umm... these days also the Big Ten title is decided based on the
regular season, and being consistent there. The Big Ten tournament does
not decide the Big Ten title. The tournament title is something
different. Last year, for example, Illinois were Big Ten champions, but
the Big Ten tournament title went to Wisconsin who beat us in the
final. This year, Illinois won both.
Yes I know - but the "automatic NCAA bid" no longer goes to
the regular-season title winner, but rather the "tournament
title winner". Dont care much for that in itself personally,
but thats just me :-)
Post by Southpaw(The Fab Five at Michigan, 3 of
Post by Cricketwallahwhom went on to have decade-long careers in the NBA, never
won a single Big Ten title in their years together - despite
actually getting to the National Title game in the NCAA's and
coming within a minute of winning the whole thing).
If you look at "history" in some ways, people will consider
Indiana, MSU, maybe even Michigan etc to be "better" programs
than Illinois. Maybe thats because they have had a few
monster seasons in the past decade and a half, that stick
in the memory longer (Indiana 3 national titles in the past
25 or so years; MSU a title with Magic, and a couple more
Final Fours; Michigan a title too, and also a couple of
Final Four appearances; heck even OSU and Minnesota had
Final Four appearances IIRC. Thats what Illinois hasnt
really done yet - only 1 Final Four appearance ever I
think. The last 5-7 years have been solid in a very down
conference- a conference that seems to be much stronger
in football than basketball nowadays. But that doesnt
I'm not sure this is true.
Which part? That Final Fours get remembered more? I really
do think thats true. Or did you mean the football part? :-)
(Couple natinoal titles in football in the past half-decade
I think, thats not half bad, and consistent contenders
lately more so than in basketball).
Post by SouthpawFour Sweet Sixteen appearances in the last 6 years. Find 10 other
programs with that sort of consistency. In general, what happens in a
16-player knock-out tournament has a lot to do with chance. That's why
they call it "madness". However, you've had a pretty consistent season
if you've reached the round of 32 or the Sweet 16s, and that has
nothing to do with chance.
Um hum. Id take one national title over 8 Sweet Sixteen
appearances myself - far more memorable. Even 1 Final Four
is worth more than a whole bunch of Sweet Sixteen's IMHO.
Everyone has a down year or two, or can - but to get right
up to the top takes a whole heck of a lot more than to be
consistently middling IMHO. You think Kentucky fans wouldnt
trade their 3/4 great years in the past 8/10 for a whole
bunch of Sweet Sixteens? Or Syracuse? Or most of them,
even? It isnt very often (and was even less so till the
1990s) that *total* wildcard teams came out of nowhere
even in the "madness" to win the whole thing. All good teams
didnt always go far- but the teams that went far almost
always were pretty damn good ones, not just bad teams on
a lucky run.
Post by SouthpawActually, only two of Illinois' starters are seniors. And three others
on the bench. Of the three guards, of whom so much is being made out
(the three Sports Illustrated cover pic, for e.g.), only Luther Head is
a senior.
In fact, rumors are circling around campus that Deron Williams will
leave for the NBA after this season. There's even been the odd rumor
about Dee Brown joining the NBA draft after this season.
Yes I know - but Id expect at least 2 of the guards to go,
especially with a decent tournament behind them. And 2
starters and 3 bench guys isnt chopped liver - with 1
extra guard IMHO almost sure to go, thats 6 players gone
(out of basically a 12-man squad). Thats pretty high
turnover. (But thats still better-off than many other
teams - there is lots of experience on Illinois, and good-
player experience. Duke, for example, has shocked with how
good theyve done this year, cos they were expected to be
bad - the guy who would have easily been their best player
ended up not playing for them at all, because at the last
minute he decided to go to the NBA instead :-) And their
junior-star-to-be, of course, is starring for the Bulls
this year :-)
Sadiq [ who doesnt know how he is ending up defending Keady ] Yusuf