|
RE: Big Ten Divisions taking shape
|
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2013 10:06 AM
RE: Big Ten Divisions taking shape
felix7 wrote: I understand your disappointment. I have suffered through the same since my Illini grad Dad indoctrinated me as a fan in early childhood. I am 57. The task of making Illini football a consistent winner has proven very difficult indeed but not it's not impossible. If it can be done in Iowa and Wisconsin, it can be done here, with the right guy to lead us. Do we have that guy? I have doubts because last year was so very disappointing, but I want to give him a fair chance. One year is not a fair chance, imo. Go Illini! agree 100%. The guy needs 3 years to really prove himself, as much as some here want to cut and run after one. There is no arguing the fact we played terribly last year, and a portion of that rests on the coaching. But without any inside knowledge of what was happening at practice and in the chalk talks and on the sidelines, we really need to lay off the guy and staff for a while. People want to pretend us giving a coach time is crazy. Michigan gave RR 3 years, and they were alot less used to losing games than we are. Im not saying we should accept losing, but when we have lost so much over the years, you arent going to get Nick Saban to take your HC gig, so you need to give the guy that does proper time .
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2013 12:06 PM
RE: Big Ten Divisions taking shape
UIEightyThree wrote:
felix7 wrote: I understand your disappointment. I have suffered through the same since my Illini grad Dad indoctrinated me as a fan in early childhood. I am 57. The task of making Illini football a consistent winner has proven very difficult indeed but not it's not impossible. If it can be done in Iowa and Wisconsin, it can be done here, with the right guy to lead us. Do we have that guy? I have doubts because last year was so very disappointing, but I want to give him a fair chance. One year is not a fair chance, imo. Go Illini! agree 100%. The guy needs 3 years to really prove himself, as much as some here want to cut and run after one. There is no arguing the fact we played terribly last year, and a portion of that rests on the coaching. But without any inside knowledge of what was happening at practice and in the chalk talks and on the sidelines, we really need to lay off the guy and staff for a while.
People want to pretend us giving a coach time is crazy. Michigan gave RR 3 years, and they were alot less used to losing games than we are. Im not saying we should accept losing, but when we have lost so much over the years, you arent going to get Nick Saban to take your HC gig, so you need to give the guy that does proper time . If Becks does an o'fer next year, he needs to be launched. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2013 2:57 PM
RE: Big Ten Divisions taking shape
UIEightyThree wrote:
felix7 wrote: I understand your disappointment. I have suffered through the same since my Illini grad Dad indoctrinated me as a fan in early childhood. I am 57. The task of making Illini football a consistent winner has proven very difficult indeed but not it's not impossible. If it can be done in Iowa and Wisconsin, it can be done here, with the right guy to lead us. Do we have that guy? I have doubts because last year was so very disappointing, but I want to give him a fair chance. One year is not a fair chance, imo. Go Illini! agree 100%. The guy needs 3 years to really prove himself, as much as some here want to cut and run after one. There is no arguing the fact we played terribly last year, and a portion of that rests on the coaching. But without any inside knowledge of what was happening at practice and in the chalk talks and on the sidelines, we really need to lay off the guy and staff for a while.
People want to pretend us giving a coach time is crazy. Michigan gave RR 3 years, and they were alot less used to losing games than we are. Im not saying we should accept losing, but when we have lost so much over the years, you arent going to get Nick Saban to take your HC gig, so you need to give the guy that does proper time . RR showed occasional promise. It's a question of probability. Travesty though it was, you just can't say with great certainty after a single season that Beckman isn't someone that can help us. But another year like that? The evidence would be pretty damning. And if you're sure you coach is the wrong guy, you make the move. For the record, I would guess that we improve enough in year 2 to buy Beckman another year. Here's guessing we get multiple Big Ten wins. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2013 3:15 PM
RE: Big Ten Divisions taking shape
DR - Agree completely. I was all for launching him last season if we had a big time, home run hire in tow. I think that would have probably been the wrong move. As it is, I too think we'll see real improvement next year and TB will be our coach for 2014 as well. Patience. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
- brosox
- Member
- 619 posts this site
|
Posted: 2/15/2013 3:24 PM
RE: Big Ten Divisions taking shape
I didn't see much last year to know what kind of "system" Beckman has either offensively or defensively. I don't know if that was a coaching issue or a talent issue, but the more I look at our recruiting ratings during the last few years of Zook, as well as the relatively few number of "good" Zook recruits who actually made it onto the field, I tend to think it was more a talent issue. Nevertheless, like most of you, I do have my serious doubts about Beckman and his coaching ability. Notwithstanding that, I really think that Thomas needs to announce to the world this summer that Beckman is our coach for at least the full term of his contract regardless of the team's performance next season. We had a decent recruiting year for the 2013 recruits. In view of the fact that most kids start making their commitments before the start of the college football season, we can only make inroads on the good players of the 2014 and 2015 classes if those recruits know that the coaching staff is secure. The reason Zook's recruiting went south in the last few years was our inability to convince kids that the coaching staff would be there to coach them. We are probably looking at a much longer recovery time if we fail to obtain decent recruits because schools can again play the negative recruiting game as to the insecurity of our staff. Let's sell playing time, let's sell building from the ground up, and let's try to have a few years of at least middle of the pack recruits to get on solid footing.
Last edited 2/15/2013 3:26 PM by brosox
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/15/2013 5:42 PM
RE: Big Ten Divisions taking shape
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten...valries#commentWhat does everyone think of his analysis on cross over rivalries? I will say that a rivalry is not based just on recent competitiveness (which is a factor), but also on historic terms. IlliBuck being run down is way off base. We're 6-4 in Columbus over the last 10 years and the rivalry goes back to 1925. The tOSU/Ill game was always the last game of the season back then and even in modern times, because of tOSU/scUM, we've opened the Big Ten with tOSU. After scUM/tOSU, you can't count on any of the other teams being down or up for the long haul. Respect history.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2013 5:49 PM
Re: Big Ten Divisions taking shape
BZuppke wrote: I think MSU will be the choice as well for all the reasons stated. Then if we go to 16 and presumedly add two more East Coast teams, do you then shift PU or IU to the West? Agreed. I do think the Ohio State game should be protected then in the crossover game. Would OSU like that? Would Illinois like that? I think Illinois has been very competitive over the last 30 years with OSU having an 11-16 record against them. Not sure if any other program but Michigan can claim anything near that as a record against the Buckeyes. THough Wisconsin is 9-16-1 over the same time period.
Last edited 2/16/2013 6:11 PM by Termin8or
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2013 5:59 PM
RE: Big Ten Divisions taking shape
it was my understanding there were not going to be any protected inter-division rivalry games.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2013 10:11 PM
Re: Big Ten Divisions taking shape
Termin8or wrote:
BZuppke wrote: I think MSU will be the choice as well for all the reasons stated. Then if we go to 16 and presumedly add two more East Coast teams, do you then shift PU or IU to the West? Agreed.
I do think the Ohio State game should be protected then in the crossover game.
Would OSU like that?
Would Illinois like that?
I think Illinois has been very competitive over the last 30 years with OSU having an 11-16 record against them. Not sure if any other program but Michigan can claim anything near that as a record against the Buckeyes.
THough Wisconsin is 9-16-1 over the same time period. When I was in school (86-90), the game against you guys was the 2nd biggest game of the year and I remember how good some of your teams were. As to your point, I think it depends on the alignment and future teams. Since PSU joined, they have been one of our two protected games due to location. If OSU, PSU and tsun were in the same division I would love for you guys to be a protected crossover game, especially if that means not having to deal with Wisky fans on a yearly basis. Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences is often an irrelevancy. |
|
Reply |
Quote |
