That is the whole point. The guys who were most "successful" still washed out and are working at second rate jobs trying to keep a toehold in the industry. That is what a dead end job is

Huh?

 

I'm not sure if you understand how coaching generally works. You get fired, you generally go backwards. You have success, you go forwards. Were Zook and Turner supposed to take over Alabama afterwards?

Edited October 7, 201411 yr by IlliniKrush

Illinois is not a dead end job, its just a potential career killer. Unlike a Memphis job, there is a legitimate expectation that if you are the HC of Illinois you should be able to make a dent in the Big10 if you are looking to move onto one of the upper echelon schools.

 

Its exactly like what a guy like Saban did at MSU.

 

 

So now we're changing the argument from "Illinois isn't a step up from Memphis" to "Illinois isn't a DESTINATION school" which no one has ever said.

 

Illinois is a clear step up from Memphis.

 

Actually my exact words were set up for failure and dead end job. Nothing here has changed that.

Illinois is not a dead end job, its just a potential career killer. Unlike a Memphis job, there is a legitimate expectation that if you are the HC of Illinois you should be able to make a dent in the Big10 if you are looking to move onto one of the upper echelon schools.

 

Its exactly like what a guy like Saban did at MSU.

 

Michigan State is clearly a level above Illinois. It isn't to the Michigan/OSU level, but it is in that next group above the Illinois' and Purdue's of the Big Ten.

Illinois is not a dead end job, its just a potential career killer. Unlike a Memphis job, there is a legitimate expectation that if you are the HC of Illinois you should be able to make a dent in the Big10 if you are looking to move onto one of the upper echelon schools.

 

Its exactly like what a guy like Saban did at MSU.

 

I'd agree with this. But that is also true of pretty much every non-elite head coaching job.

Illinois doesnt need the Illinois kids to be successful, they need to recruit the midwest smarter than they are today. I could name 10 players they should be in on and wont be and those kids will be studs at MAC or other even lower tier Big Ten schools.

Illinois is probably the worst college football job in the Big 10.

Too many unreasonable expectations from the alumni.

 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn St, Nebraska, and Ohio St. have winning history.

 

Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland and Indiana are just happy to be successful sometimes.

 

Iowa , Michigan St. and Illinois are the only schools that have tasted success and think they can get it every year. Iowa and Michigan St. are right and are successful sometimes, Illinois is not.

 

Actually my exact words were set up for failure and dead end job. Nothing here has changed that.

 

That didn't stop Wisconsin or Northwestern (or Memphis) from hiring decent coaches when they were dumpster fires. Believe it or not, you can be successful at Illinois. The last two coaches ended up as failures because they just weren't good coaches.

 

 

Illinois is probably the worst college football job in the Big 10.

Too many unreasonable expectations from the alumni.

 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn St, Nebraska, and Ohio St. have winning history.

 

Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland and Indiana are just happy to be successful sometimes.

 

Iowa , Michigan St. and Illinois are the only schools that have tasted success and think they can get it every year. Iowa and Michigan St. are right and are successful sometimes, Illinois is not.

Illinois actually has a pretty decent football history, including multiple national titles. Thats someting Wisconsin cant claim.

Edited October 7, 201411 yr by RockRaines

Illinois is probably the worst college football job in the Big 10.

Too many unreasonable expectations from the alumni.

 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn St, Nebraska, and Ohio St. have winning history.

 

Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland and Indiana are just happy to be successful sometimes.

 

Iowa , Michigan St. and Illinois are the only schools that have tasted success and think they can get it every year. Iowa and Michigan St. are right and are successful sometimes, Illinois is not.

 

Looking on from the outside in, this is pretty much how I see things as well. Judging by the amount of problems Illinois had trying to find someone to take the job last time around, I think that correlates to this view.

Illinois is probably the worst college football job in the Big 10.

Too many unreasonable expectations from the alumni.

 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn St, Nebraska, and Ohio St. have winning history.

 

Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland and Indiana are just happy to be successful sometimes.

 

Iowa , Michigan St. and Illinois are the only schools that have tasted success and think they can get it every year. Iowa and Michigan St. are right and are successful sometimes, Illinois is not.

 

Um, Illinois fans really don't have high expectations for the football program. We have sucked for 20 years now because of s***ty coaches. Ron Turner and Ron Zook were each allowed to coach the program for 7 years when both should have been fired earlier than that (Turner year 6, Zook year 5). Illinois fans are basically looking for the program to get to Iowa's level. That isn't unreasonable and a good coach is capable of doing that.

 

 

Illinois is probably the worst college football job in the Big 10.

Too many unreasonable expectations from the alumni.

 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn St, Nebraska, and Ohio St. have winning history.

 

Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland and Indiana are just happy to be successful sometimes.

 

Iowa , Michigan St. and Illinois are the only schools that have tasted success and think they can get it every year. Iowa and Michigan St. are right and are successful sometimes, Illinois is not.

 

Wisconsin's winning history began with Alvarez. Wisconsin and Michigan State are what Illinois should be.

Illinois actually has a pretty decent football history, including multiple national titles. Thats someting Wisconsin cant claim.

 

Thanks for the support Rock, but that's like bragging about the Bears having won 9 NFL Championships.

Illinois actually has a pretty decent football history, including multiple national titles. Thats someting Wisconsin cant claim.

 

Between 1980-1991 Illinois was 62-35-3 in Big Ten play. Then came 20 years of bad coaches and weak administration.

 

 

I think he's confusing basketball and football fans.

Between 1980-1991 Illinois was 62-35-3 in Big Ten play. Then came 20 years of bad coaches and weak administration.

 

That is basically 25 years ago now. Things have changed since then.

Actually my exact words were set up for failure and dead end job. Nothing here has changed that.

 

 

Illinois is probably the worst college football job in the Big 10.

Too many unreasonable expectations from the alumni.

 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Penn St, Nebraska, and Ohio St. have winning history.

 

Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland and Indiana are just happy to be successful sometimes.

 

Iowa , Michigan St. and Illinois are the only schools that have tasted success and think they can get it every year. Iowa and Michigan St. are right and are successful sometimes, Illinois is not.

 

 

Looking on from the outside in, this is pretty much how I see things as well. Judging by the amount of problems Illinois had trying to find someone to take the job last time around, I think that correlates to this view.

Southsider you're either trolling or you don't follow college football and Illinois closely enough. We lost Sumlin to Texas A&M. Big shocker there.

 

You would have said the same thing about Wisconsin years ago, or Duke recently. One coach can make all the difference. There's nothing inherent that makes it a dead end job or set up for failure. That doesn't make any sense.

 

Knight, as far as your comment about unreasonable expectations. Come on. I don't expect us to compete for BT titles outside the once every magical year thing, but to consistently make bowls and be competitive in most BT games? If that's unreasonable I don't know what is reasonable. The program used to be right behind a Michigan and OSU. We don't even need to get to that level. But there's no reason they can't be an Iowa. None. And that's not unreasonable expectations.

 

I think he's confusing basketball and football fans.

 

Not really. I think the basketball program has a higher expectation and chance at sustained success. The football program is just dead to the world.

Southsider you're either trolling or you don't follow college football and Illinois closely enough. We lost Sumlin to Texas A&M. Big shocker there.

 

You would have said the same thing about Wisconsin years ago, or Duke recently. One coach can make all the difference. There's nothing inherent that makes it a dead end job or set up for failure. That doesn't make any sense.

 

Knight, as far as your comment about unreasonable expectations. Come on. I don't expect us to compete for BT titles outside the once every magical year thing, but to consistently make bowls and be competitive in most BT games? If that's unreasonable I don't know what is reasonable. The program used to be right behind a Michigan and OSU. We don't even need to get to that level. But there's no reason they can't be an Iowa. None. And that's not unreasonable expectations.

 

Great. But because of where Illinois is as a job, the odds of getting that coach are greatly decreased. That is the reality today. Coaches are avoiding Illinois for a reason.

Great. But because of where Illinois is as a job, the odds of getting that coach are greatly decreased. That is the reality today. Coaches are avoiding Illinois for a reason.

Haha, right.

Not really. I think the basketball program has a higher expectation and chance at sustained success. The football program is just dead to the world.

Of course illini basketball has higher expectations. We're talking about Illini football fans though. Half of them defend Ron freaking Zook, generally regarded as an awful coach by the rest of the sane world, like he's their own first born. Hell this whole discussion started because illinois fans think they might have a shot at a guy from one of the worst programs in the country and whose resume includes a 10-19 mark as a head coach. How is that having too high of expectations?

Edited October 7, 201411 yr by Buehrle>Wood

That is basically 25 years ago now. Things have changed since then.

 

Yes, before I was born. Happen to know how good Northwestern was during that timespan? I think things have changed with regard to their program. I understand what you're saying, but it's not impossible to be successful at Illinois. As you might say, things can change.

 

 

 

 

The reason coaches are avoiding Illinois is likely money.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/salaries/

 

Not sure the accuracy but Illinois is at 60, which isnt something you jump at.

The reason coaches are avoiding Illinois is likely money.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/salaries/

 

Not sure the accuracy but Illinois is at 60, which isnt something you jump at.

If Sumlin agreed to come to Illinois that would be much higher. Why would we pay a hire like Beckman more than we are? If the right coach wants to come to Illinois they'll pay them.

Of course illini basketball has higher expectations. We're talking about Illini football fans though. Half of them defend Ron freaking Zook, generally regarded as an awful coach by the rest of the sane world, like he's their own first born. Hell this whole discussion started because illinois fans think they might have a shot at a guy from one of the worst programs in the country and whose resume includes a 10-19 mark as a head coach. How is that having too high of expectations?

 

Agreed. The expectations for the football program amongst Illinois fans is actually really low (thank you 20 years of horrendous head coaches). The people who think we should have kept Zook don't recognize that he had stopped recruiting and that we were going to be horrible under him going forward. Propping up Zook with decent assistants resulted in a couple very mediocre seasons and really in 2011 while the final record looked solid, that team finished tied for 2nd to last in the Big 10. And Zook had those mediocre season with a lot of NFL talent. Without that NFL talent? We were looking at some terrible seasons. That doesn't excuse Thomas for hiring Beckman (and I wish he would have cut bait on Beckman after year 1) but I don't understand the people who wanted to retain Zook for going 6-6 with NFL talent when there was no talent in the pipeline. The 2010-2012 classes were horrendous and if Zook isn't recruiting he literally has 0 value as a coach.