College basketball coaching carousel

This is where we diverge. I think Illinois is a clear step down from Michigan State and probably a step down from Michigan, as well. Any coach would love to inherit what Tom Izzo's built. And Michigan has a rich history and a wealth of resources that surpass Illinois. I don't think there's much chance Illinois makes as good or expensive a hire as John Beilein.

 

Until you get to Champaign and recoil in horror as to how much of an epic shithole it is compared to Madison.

Also, Illinois has 11 other Division I programs within its state of varying degrees of quality it has to compete with for the Chicago pie, as well as pretty much every other Division I program in every neighboring state, including at least half of the Big Ten and Notre Dame. Nearly every Division I school in Indiana heavily recruits Chicago. I'm sure some/all of the Michigan and Iowa schools do too.

 

That style is called brutalist

 

Northwestern is importing a hulking inside guy from Romania . . . only one season too late . . .

 

Regarding the fanbase's attitudes relative to actual overall athletic accomplishment, Illinois is the Missouri of the Big Ten: never have so many been so proud about so little.

OK, Illinois is slightly better than that, with a couple Final Fours and Rose Bowls.

It's baffling how Illinois hasn't had more consistent success in basketball. As Starman said, locking up Chicago would seem to be the plan for a juggernaut. But other Big Ten schools have always been able to poach Chicago talent from the Illini.

 

Re: Illinois

I have often said that, if Minnesota and Illinois can hold their "home bases" (Minneapolis and Chicago) on recruiting in football and men's basketball, then Wisconsin would never escape last place.

I think, in basketball, this is especially true. Illinois *should* be more of a gold mine than it really is. However, I think it suffers from what Mizzou did for a long time with St. Louis -- Norm Stewart just couldn't land top talent aside from Stipo and Kelly Thames (pre-knee injury).

If you're a St. Louis kid (especially "Metro East", a.k.a. the Illinois side), playing in Champaign might be a lifelong goal. For the top Chicago kids, why would you want to go to Illinois if you have bigger and better options? Even within the Big Ten, Madison is nearly as close to Chicago as Champaign is (and a far easier drive if you are on the north side/suburbs). Purdue is closer to Chicago than Champaign is. East Lansing is only 90 miles further from Chicago than Champaign is.

Also, look at the cultural issues. Indiana basketball players grew up wanting to be Hoosiers (or, perhaps Boilers). Ohio kids...for Buckeyes. I have never gotten the sense that Chicago kids really want to play for the Illini. Maybe rural downstate kids but, for those students, they can be quickly poached by Illinois State/Bradley/Southern Illinois if they are not at a Big Ten level.

 

Did a little research: Going back to 1980, Illinois has won 20 games in a season 24 times and gone to the NCAA tournament 24 times. No other Big Ten team has won 20 games that many times during that span and only Indiana has more tournament appearances at 25. Yes, unfortunately Illinois doesn't have the championship hardware that Indiana, Michigan State and Michigan do have, but the track record would suggest Illinois takes a back seat to no one as a Big Ten basketball program.

 

I don't deny that. But track record in college athletics in overrated. 15 years ago, the thought that Wisconsin would finish higher than Illinois nearly every year in the Big Ten was absurd.

When I think of Illinois, I think of a program that was solid in the 1980's and just has not been able to "make the leap" of a Kansas, Michigan State or a Florida into a program with a national profile.

I think of Illinois the way I think of Seton Hall, DePaul, Oklahoma, UNLV, Iowa. Used to be a big job. Places that, 20 years ago, were tough places to play, almost always made the NCAA tournament but, now, are shells of their past glory.

As for those 20-win seasons, especially in the 1980s, Illinois was usually in the top half of the Big Ten. Wisconsin and Northwestern were always dreadful, Michigan State and Ohio State were usually .500 while Michigan and Indiana were 1-2, with Purdue, Iowa and Illinois in the second tier. Also, with the exception of the Mizzou game in late December, I remember a lot of Austin Peay/Arkansas State fodder for Lou Henson's non-con.

Not saying Illinois cannot be a sleeping giant.

 

Kansas didn't have to make a leap, and I think putting Illinois into the same category as Seton Hall, DePaul or Iowa is pretty harsh.

 

Seton Hall, DePaul . . . even Iowa fans . . . don't expect the world.

Illinois fans think it was just bad luck they didn't beat Carolina.

Second-tier Big Ten program right now (that penthouse is tough to crash), and headed the wrong way.

 

OK, let's make it more current--the post Lou Henson era. That's 16 seasons--13 with 20+ wins, 12 NCAA appearances, 4 Sweet 16 appearances. Granted, most of the deep runs were Bill Self coached or recruited teams.

But, Seton Hall, De Paul, UNLV, even Iowa--no.

And yes, they are on a downward slide thanks to Weber. But with 2 major metropolitan areas to draw from in Chicago and St Louis, this job can be a very good one.

 

I don't deny any of the potential for the job. Illinois should be better than half the Big Ten every year. They just aren't.

But Illinois has experienced this level of erosion -- not unlike Tennessee and Texas A&M football -- in the past stretch. They could find a jump start (Shaka Smart?) if they pick the correct choice.

Jens Kujawa ain't walkin' through that door.