Nothing groundbreaking, but good regardless

http://www.illinihq.com/news/mens_basketba...pays_for_weber/

If anything, it is an excellent corrective to the "Jerrance saved the program" myth.

I call BS on at least part of that article.

YES, I know how popular this opinion will make me.

What part?

Would you care to enlighten us as to which part you take issue with?

:lol:
don't think it's much of an issue at this point

That Weber watched Rose play in the 8th grade. That just doesn't square....

No wonder his coaches were all over him to offer players earlier, he waited forever (in recruiting terms)

to offer players during his early years at IL.

While I agree that Weber probably should have offered a few players earlier, I don't think it would have mattered either way with Rose.

His path was determined for him, and Illinois was not a school that would have agreed to the stipulations.

Well that pretty much settles the Palmer issue once and for all. He might as well have added, "like I did before with David Palmer."

Interestingly, that statement leaves open the liklihood that if he makes a mistake on an early offer, weber is open to going back on his word again.

Of course I'm not surprised.

Newsletter.

I think one would have to be an idiot to not see the implications of that statement.

It's absolutely clear what happened with Palmer, and weber verified it.

Bruce Weber simply can't win with some fans. If he starts offering players early, he admits that every once in a while a mistake will be made and he will go back on his word, and fans will rip him apart. If he waits to offer players until they are juniors/seniors, he misses out on the top flight recruiting classes he has brought in and fans will rip him apart.

What do you suggest he does? Honor a committment that won't be beneficial to either the Illini or the player by sitting him on the bench until he transfers?

My opinion is, you cut the player loose once he doesn't fit into your plans and you help him catch on somewhere else.

Newsletter.

Feel free to keep derailing an absolutely positive article with your trash, however.

I don't share your opinion (that you just simply cut people once you've made a committment), nor do I think the full Palmer story will ever see the light of day.

However, even if worst case scenarios were true about Palmer, Weber obviously isn't a scummy guy like Fear likes to portray him. A similar scenario went down with Semrau (huge drop from the recruiting rankings), and he didn't rescind the scholarship. Same thing with Bill Cole.

Nothing to see here. If it started being a regular occurrence, I'd be concerned. It's not, so I'm not. What IS becoming a regular occurrence is our program landing stud recruits, all of whom have glowing things to say about our program and our staff, and that's as much as any of us could ask for.

Funny, I imagine you didn't feel the same way when Gordon cut us loose because we hadn't fit into his plans.

Really, I think it's a bit hypocritical when we expect high school players to honor commitments they make to the program, but don't expect the same standards in return from the coaches. Unless a scholarship is made on a contingent basis (i.e. make the grades and we have a spot for you) and the player knows that up front, I would hope our coach never goes back on his word given to a player if the player doesn't develop like he had hoped.

To suggest going back on his word once in a while is ok is a completely disgusting approach, in my opinion.

I don't know why you feel you have to deify weber, when in his own words he basically says if he makes a mistake when he offers a recruit, he may have to go back on his own word. From the circumstances of the Palmer recriuitment, we know that this is what happened. It's black and white.

Illini2003 basically gets it. That's exactly what happened with Palmer. weber doesn't want that kind of thing to happen again, but who does? No one wants to go back on their word. But I think it's pretty clear that with the right circumstances, weber would do it again.

The Semrau and Cole examples aren't even in the ballpark. Semrau was injured his junior yearand that was the reason most people thought he wasn't playing as he had when he was much higher rated. Cole never dropped that much. And, both of them were after the Palmer affair. weber didn't need another Palmer fiasco on his hands.

Newsletter. And Strawman. I've never claimed Weber is perfect and have criticized him on several occasions. I just also believe that credit is due when it is due. And it's due.

It is fun, however, imagining you squirming uncontrollably with all this positive Weber press that's been out lately. Good times!

Great, its a disgusting approach. So answer my original question, what do you suggest he should have done with David Palmer? Honor the committment, sit him on the bench, and wait for him to transfer? Who does that benefit? How is that any better than cutting him loose? In Weber's own words, he admits he worries about having to go back on his word, he trys to avoid it whenever possible. Thats why he works so hard on the recruiting trail to try and avoid the situation all together.

As to Eric Gordon, and I'll only speak for myself, Gordon strung the Illini and Coach Weber along, telling them that he is solidly committed, nothing to worry about, etc. If one of our recently committed recruits comes out today and says, "you know what, I'm having second thoughts about my committment, I'm reopening my recruitment.," I would certainly not be happy, but I think I would understand and not have the same animosity as I hold towards EG and his family.

To be clear, I wasn't trying to defend Gordon - I think a player decommitting from a program (in basketball) is a really crappy thing to do, given that coaches hold spots and structure their recruiting strategy about that player being there. And conversely, I think a coach telling a player he has an offer and then pulling that offer is an equally crappy thing to do, given that a player will plan his future around that offer. But I agree, the way Gordon strung us along was unforgivable.

As to Palmer, I didn't bring that up, fear did. I honestly have no idea what happened with Palmer, and I've always suspected it was something to do with academics. Whether or not Bruce pulled the rug out from under him or not, I have no idea. I will say that it there were no academic problems, to remove the scholarship offer is a really crappy thing to do, and if he did it on signing day with no warning (and there were quotes from Palmer's camp that they were expecting that letter to be faxed over that day) then that's as bad as what Gordon did. I think if you're going to pull the trigger on a kid at any point, and extend an offer, and if the kid takes the offer, that's that. If it doesn't work out, well, that's the price for making the offer early. It goes both ways.

Now, I will say if the coach were to be honest with the kid and say "Look, we promised you an offer, and it's still on the table, but you're going to need to work really hard to have a shot at playing" that's fine, but don't take away the offer just because the kid didn't develop like he thought you would (just like a kid shouldn't decommit just because the coach didn't fill a class with other players like thought he would).

You and I see 100% eye to eye on this.

And if it came out that the above scenario was exactly what happened with Palmer, I would not be happy. However, I have a hard time believing that it was 100% the scenario posted above, and anybody that says "it's clear as day what happened with Palmer" is full of it, because nobody has ever come forward with the full story on how that went down. And I don't mean he-said-she-said stuff...I mean an actual credible source with the full story.

If a kid drops like a rock and the playing is the only issue, then let him come on down and ride pine. You have 12 other players on the roster to make up for the 1 kid that's not productive.

I agree with this. One of the drawbacks to early offers is that a kid may not pan out. However, the upside is that you get kids that turn into studs or get in on studs early and establish a presence.

If you make an offer, honor it. You will miss some, but then they ride the pine if not good enough. Everyone keeps their integrity intact and like you said, unless you miss quite a few it shouldn't hurt that much.

I tend to think with this approach that Weber will hit more than miss.

My guess would be that Weber had a good reason to pull the offer.as Linda Paul said,"Bruce Weber is a man of his word."

Truth is,if he would have honored it when there was an"escape clause" available,same people that are bitching now would have been stating that Weber "wasted a scholarship","he is in the big time and has to recruit like the other big-timers and if it means cutting a poor player loose,so be it",blah blah blah.They wouldn't have given a rat's arse about Palmer,but would have spun it the other way.Same old,same old.

Another question... if a kid doesn't pan out, and the staff wants to keep their commitment, how long should the commitment be for?

Is it 4-5 years, or first year only?

I believe Kyle Yelton got a free education for 4 years at UI while Santella (a walk-on, iirc) did all the punting.

Actually, I'm going to side with fear here on this. I don't think that I've ever heard him say "cut somebody loose", even when recruiting was down. Maybe others have suggested it, but I've not seen that.

Like I said, my issue is the silly insistence that any of us truly know the full story with what went down with Palmer. Or saying that because Weber made a comment about not wanting to go back on his word by offering early, he was directly or even tacitly admitting that he had done so with Palmer.

Meh. People read and interpret whatever they thought in the first place, I guess.

Well, I think the university's responsibility is to honor 4 years (the amount of time it would take to get a degree). If the kid is fine with bench-warming, then so be it, but the kid should also always have the opportunity to transfer if playing is what they really want to be doing.

A scholarship offer is an agreement to free education if you agree to come to that school. No more, no less (or at least it shouldn't be, according to NCAA "rules").

Timeline:

1. Weber loses out on recruiting battles for Gordon, Rose, etc.

2. Weber offers early scholarships, leads to success with Richmond, DJ, Paul, etc.

3. Several media outlets from ESPN, FoxSports, Sporting News, Chicago, and St. Louis write article on Weber success.

4. Loren Tate figures out what happened, writes positive article about Weber offering early scholarships leading to success.

Honestly, I think 90% of his posts are strawmen. Put words in someone's mouth in an attempt to prove he's right.

Clearly you deify Weber, lol. And so much trash.

Fact, he doesn't know what happened with Palmer.
Fact, he doesn't know if Palmer was told the offer had conditions.
He's putting words in Weber's mouth to further his agenda.

Might not have had anything to do with getting a transcript I am sure.....

Funny how this article brings out the anti Weber crowd.

I agree, once we have given and accepted a commitment, anything short or legal trouble or grade/test score issues should put us in a position where we take the player regardless.

I see nothing wrong with letting a player who has not continued to improve know that he will be a long shot for getting playing time.

I think the detractors on this board are missing the entire point of what Bruce was saying. He wasnt saying that he would revoke offers, just that by offering very early there would be misses.

Hell has frozen over, Orange and I completely agree on an issue.

The commitement imo should be for a college degree imo. whether that is 4 or 5 years. I believe we take on as a university a responsibility to see our incomming freshmen become college grads.

Look around, Self was going to cut Jerrance Howard loose, Bruce kept him and it has paid major dividends to the program over the long term.

There's no question that media outlets were reporting on signing day that Palmer was expected to sign. There was no excuse for letting that happen.

And I can't believe that anybody believes that if Palmer had still been playing like a top 50 prospect that academic issues would have prevented the signing.

Patrick Beverely, come on down! Ok, so maybe I believe it.

What word, specifically, did Weber go back on with Palmer? Who knows what they talked about in discussions? To pretend that you know is to also pretend you're not salivating for bad news about Weber (and the Illini in general).

LOL...like I said, nothing groundbreaking.

Typical how soon some forget. How about Palmer looking at Big East schools like Providence? I'd have cut him loose too.

It also exposes members with multiple usernames, who agree with themselves. There are very few anti-Weber people now, and the ones left look like they just have an axe to grind. Nothing to see here.

?????????

J.R. Morris?

Is it true that some of the same Weber critics thought he shouldn't have honored Self's offer to Ingram?

Someone mentioned that Bruce renewed Jerrance for a 5th year; while Self has intended not to?

What was the deal on Melton? Did Self crean him to open up a scholarship?

I recall one time a kid from Indiana announced for Illinois. Henson was the coach, early in his tenure. It was a misunderstanding, the kid never had an offer.

All scholarships are renewed year to year.

All verbal offers and commitments are non-binding.

Media reports are not necessarily accurate.

A perfect example of moving quickly to correct a problem, and minimizing the embarrassment for everybody.

There are three people as far as I can tell who are right about Weber, Me, Larue and fear.

You guys should get together and go bowling or something.

I'm sure Fear and Larue appreciate your endorsement.

I don't believe the "early offer" strategy is one they'll have to stick with. If the next 3-4 years are nearly as successful as most of us think they'll be, recruiting should be much easier.

I also think the whole "early offer" theory is sort of overblown. I think Illinois finally found some situations that were more favorable to them, and sealed the deal. Not a whole lot more. It might have helped with Richmond, but he was a strong Illinois lean to begin with. As were the others.

I dont think so, I think we will continue to offer early, because the major reason you offer early is to get into the kids before the outside influences try to cash in on the kids.

I do agree with you that the early offer strategy maybe slightly overblown. Some of these kids are just from better families with fewer influences from handlers.

They should because UNLIKE you, I DO know what went on in each case that has been talked about, Palmer, Dentmon, Gordon, Rose....ect.

Offering early is high risk, but it seems to have been necessary to get the momentum going. Now I think you talk to the kids early, dangle the possibility of an offer, and then buy time to see how things develop.

With the recent recruiting successes and (hopefully) the upcoming success on the court, they should be more willing to wait for an offer.

It wasn't just the early offers, but I would have to disagree in that all of the evidence up until Richmond is that if Illinois has to go head to head with (fill in big time school), the big time school would win the battle. The early offer to Richmond and his early commitment was a huge momentum swing, and all of a sudden Illinois was cool again.

From a recruiting standpoint, Weber has one HUGE (and sometimes overlooked) strength -- he can evaluate talent as well or better than anyone. He sees what the player can be.

So, here is a hypothetical: how might Brandon Paul's recruitment played out if Illinois had not offered early? My answer: Obviously, we'll never know for sure, but one could easily see Kansas or Duke in the picture after he blew up the season (and summer) after he committed.

This is just what I was really looking for on the whole Palmer thing...no more he-said/she-said stuff, but an honest to goodness reputable, and unbiased source. An intellegent, well-versed....oh wait, nevermind. It's you.