There are other threads to get into recent specifics or to debate Underwood's performance, but I was curious if your expectations for the program have changed now that we're in the era of NIL and the portal.
For example, it used to be fair to say that you throw out a coach's first two years because he's using someone else's players and building a culture. Now there is so much more roster turnover that it's very hard to build an enduring culture and you don't keep another coach's players very long. [On the football side, nobody is giving Deion Sanders a pass on this year's performance. Basketball rosters are even easier to turn over so you could get a job in March and have a brand new roster by June.] That's really just the portal effect there.
NIL also is a game-changer in recruiting expectations. First of all, the AD and boosters are driving the NIL totals so there is going to be greater accountability if the coach can't close the deal or if a highly paid player goes bust. Some of the roster management authority and power has been outsourced to the collective. I think that's a net negative in terms of the coach having control of the program and the locker room, which he's going to need to have elite success.
On the other hand, there are no more excuses when it comes to recruiting. If you are a Top 25 NIL $ school you should have a Top 25 recruiting class. You can't say "Kansas paid my recruit $200K under the table" or "everyone else is cheating and I'm doing it by the book." It's all out in the open market now.
There's also much less of a need to recruit in your neighborhood. How much is it really going to matter anymore that a player is in-state? These guys don't even stay in-state during high school these days. It matters very little. No more "must get" recruits in your backyard.
Finally, there's the need to re-recruit your own players. Can you develop guys long-term? Will they even stick around?
So it's a very different ballgame. (I didn't even mention conference realignment and TV money.) Do you think (independent of the coach) that the Illinois bball program is in a better position to compete now than before? Does that raise the bar for what you consider acceptable performance? Or is it going to be harder to compete at the very highest levels because we don't have a history of NCAA Tournament success and the blue bloods just have their advantages baked in even more? Are we locked into a certain tier? Does the coach even matter as much as he used to or can you just plug and play anyone into the NIL $ machine?
Thoughts?
For example, it used to be fair to say that you throw out a coach's first two years because he's using someone else's players and building a culture. Now there is so much more roster turnover that it's very hard to build an enduring culture and you don't keep another coach's players very long. [On the football side, nobody is giving Deion Sanders a pass on this year's performance. Basketball rosters are even easier to turn over so you could get a job in March and have a brand new roster by June.] That's really just the portal effect there.
NIL also is a game-changer in recruiting expectations. First of all, the AD and boosters are driving the NIL totals so there is going to be greater accountability if the coach can't close the deal or if a highly paid player goes bust. Some of the roster management authority and power has been outsourced to the collective. I think that's a net negative in terms of the coach having control of the program and the locker room, which he's going to need to have elite success.
On the other hand, there are no more excuses when it comes to recruiting. If you are a Top 25 NIL $ school you should have a Top 25 recruiting class. You can't say "Kansas paid my recruit $200K under the table" or "everyone else is cheating and I'm doing it by the book." It's all out in the open market now.
There's also much less of a need to recruit in your neighborhood. How much is it really going to matter anymore that a player is in-state? These guys don't even stay in-state during high school these days. It matters very little. No more "must get" recruits in your backyard.
Finally, there's the need to re-recruit your own players. Can you develop guys long-term? Will they even stick around?
So it's a very different ballgame. (I didn't even mention conference realignment and TV money.) Do you think (independent of the coach) that the Illinois bball program is in a better position to compete now than before? Does that raise the bar for what you consider acceptable performance? Or is it going to be harder to compete at the very highest levels because we don't have a history of NCAA Tournament success and the blue bloods just have their advantages baked in even more? Are we locked into a certain tier? Does the coach even matter as much as he used to or can you just plug and play anyone into the NIL $ machine?
Thoughts?
