Tate: That was one Hall of an effort, Illini
Ask Tate where this game ranks here
"There's a lot of snow out there. Go out and find a four-leaf clover" – former Illini Kendall Gill
ESPN CENTER, USA – Bruce Weber's Illini dug deep into the drifts Saturday, drawing inspiration from a feverish packed house and finding their good-luck charm with a best-yet performance from Demetri McCamey (22 points, 11 assists) and his pumped gang of helpers.
The Assembly Hall was a super-charged Roman Coliseum for a night, an ear-splitting audience pleading for success against favored Michigan State and charging the court when it ended 78-73.
Call it an out-of-body experience that began with more than 4,000 serving as a roaring backdrop to ESPN's morning GameDay and resumed with the house full in the evening. We saw Mike Davis regain his touch and his enthusiasm. We saw Brandon Paul fly without wings. We saw D.J. Richardson draining free throws in the clutch. We saw Illinois succeed against a tough-as-nails visitor who refused to miss when they trailed.
Paul broke a 68-68 tie with a driving layup at 1:21. The Illini tied up Draymond Green to regain possession and McCamey drained a huge trey ahead of a Green tip-in. With free throws deciding the outcome, Richardson drained three in the last half minute, and Davis capped it with a dunk.
Fun for all
There were all kinds of ESPN-relayed hints that basketball's home court would enjoy a memorable day.
It began with a huge D.C. turnout inspiring Georgetown to a 50-point first half and a 103-90 defeat of No. 2 Villanova. No ranked and favored team lost at home all day, while the road favored Oklahoma vs. No. 9 Texas 80-71, Lon Kruger's UNLV Rebels vs. No. 12 BYU, Richmond vs. No. 19 Temple, Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Baylor and, later on, Georgia vs. No. 18 Vanderbilt.
And the ranked trio of Duke, Kansas State and Gonzaga were challenged late. That's the kind of day it was on home courts.
In Champaign, we were witness to a spectacular performance by Illinois. Would ailing Spartan star Kalin Lucas have made a difference? Perhaps, but nothing could detract from what the Illini accomplished. Illinois has had no more impressive win nor a stronger performance since Dee Brown graduated in 2006. These Spartans reached into a superb bench and caught fire with 75 percent field goal accuracy in the first 13 minutes, 55.6 percent through halftime and 54.7 percent for the game. Still, Illinois prevailed ... somehow. This was undeniably the high point of the last four seasons, lifted Illinois to 8-3 in the Big Ten and back in NCAA tournament consideration.
Remember when
Memories are short, and it's understandable that the UI's youthful contingent of 4,000-plus dug "lovable" Digger throughout ESPN's GameDay show Saturday morning.
The former Notre Dame basketball coach swung his green and orange markers and controlled the fired-up crowd like a puppeteer manipulates his marionettes.
After all, many of these students weren't even born two decades ago – or they were still sucking on milk bottles – when then-Iowa assistant Bruce Pearl filed charges over the UI's involvement with Chicago recruit Deon Thomas, and Phelps chimed in with off-base complaints regarding then-Notre Dame freshman LaPhonso Ellis.
With Illini coach Lou Henson (here Saturday night) being hit from two directions, and with Indiana coach Bob Knight pitching in, UI chancellor Mort Weir was obliged to take the accusations seriously. And even though the charges relative to Thomas and Ellis were ultimately dropped, the long investigation caused Henson and the Illini to lose the great momentum gained in the 1980s (Final Four in 1989).
To top it off, the UI was sanctioned for minor violations uncovered in the investigation. And NCAA officials with personal links to Iowa and Notre Dame offered opinions that Illinois might have been guilty relative to Thomas and Ellis even though the evidence didn't show it.
It was a dark, ugly period. You make the call, Henson or Phelps-Pearl.
Loren Tate writes for The News-Gazette. He can be reached at ltate@news-gazette.com.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/11/11/style/campus-life-illinois-basketball-team-penalized-after-recruiting-inquiry.html?pagewanted=1
Facts -- what wonderful things they can be if they are presented.
"The N.C.A.A. said that significant violations occurred in the school's recruiting procedures, but added that the evidence did not substantiate the most serious allegations: that Illinois offered large sums of cash and cars to lure leading recruits."
I know -- some people will read that to mean the violations were minor because the worst ones were not proved. But these are probably the same people who blame the officials for every loss and who call in to the post-game radio shows and say: "I've been an Illini fan for 37 years!" and then follow with the most mind-numbing statement possible.
Ok i am confused wenalway. are you even a illini fan? Whats your problem? What part of charges were dropped dont you understand? That means the actual charges of what they were charged with were in fact dropped! There were punished for som BS crap instead! Anyway this was years ago so why are you being crappy towards the article or others comments? The talk here should be about the great win and atmostphere we had last night! Get over it!
That article linked adds nothing new. All it offers is vague references to unproven improprieties.
The NCAA knows nothing about jurisprudence...well, we can't prove anything, but we just know they're guilty of something bad because we heard rumors about it and a bunch of their rivals think so too so we're going to penalize them....
I really don't want to relive this case, but the injustice just draws me back in, over and over again.
That says charges were dropped? Where? The start of the sentence says: "The NCAA said that significant violations occurred ..."
Significant and minor are not the same thing.
And I expected people to say that sentence meant the violations were minor, but I didn't expect anyone to claim the charges were dropped. Why would the team have been on probation if the charges were dropped?
I love the Internets! And I can just hear the post-game caller now: "I've been an Illini fan for 37 years ..."
As I recall, the NCAA held that Henson violated rules for in-person contact with a recruit even though it could not produce evidence that Henson actually saw the recruit at the alleged time. Henson's travel records indicated it might have been possible for him to travel to see the recruit on that particular day, and that 'possibility' alone was enough for the NCAA.
Pearl should have been convicted both of unlawfully making a secret recording of a telephone conversation, and of entrapment.
Phelps piled on with venomous lies.
Mike Slive tried to get the UofI to commit suicide by saying all the lies were true.
Ikenberry caved, instead of defending Illini players, coaches and staff.
It is unjust that so many of the real evil-doers from that sickening era profited from their deeds... Pearl at Tenneessee, Phelps at ESPN, Slive at the SEC... and worst of all, Ikenberry is back in charge of the UofI: expect the worst for all Illini athletics.
Wenalway is all yak, no facts.
It's always amusing when someone claims someone else has no facts, but then the root of the other person's argument holds no facts, and it hurls any number of unsubstantiated allegations at several people.
The point still is, was, and always shall be that however often and however loud Mr. Tate wants to insist the violations were minor, there's at least another article saying they weren't. Significant and minor are two different things.
Now, go back to calling the post-game radio show. "I've been an Illini fan for 37 years ..."
Wenalway: If you are really interested in the facts concerning this case, I suggest you read the book "Undue Process". I'm sure you won't, because its more fun for you to come here and talk about something you undoubtedly know very little about. Were you an adult living in the champaign-urbana area at that time? If you were you would have a much better understanding of the facts involved in the case. It was front page news every day for months. But, apparently you know more than Mr. Tate, who spent countless hours covering this case.
And yet he still claims the sanctions described as significant were minor. And he clearly has an agenda.
Let's see -- should I rely on the word of someone who is stating facts different from those of recorded history, especially when there's a clear bias? Or should I go with neutral, recorded history? Hmm, that's a tough one ...
But I know who I won't listen to: The people whose expertise consists of calling the post-game radio show and starting with: "I've been an Illini fan for 37 years!"
True Illini fans have the facts. They don't rely on the word of bitter, biased people with 20-year chips on their shoulders. They don't blame the officials for every loss.
This Illini fan is tired of all the bitching and blaming.
Also, until someone cites a source other than their own faulty memory, I'll stick with what the New York Times said: The sanctions were significant.
Significant is not minor. Did you bother to read the article? Smrt said he favored the death penalty; that doesn't sound like the NCAA thought the sanctions were minor.
Facts -- try to have some.
Go back to calling the post-game radio show. "I've been an Illini fan for 37 years" -- the fast sign to change the station, as nonsense is about to be uttered.
Wenalway,
You are either a fan of another team or you're just an idiot looking to open old wounds that should never have happened in the first place - brought about by a jealous, crooked liar named Bruce Pearl. Please show me the evidence that YOU have, other than one article without any evidence saying that there were "Significant" violations.
The fact is that the NCAA never proved anything. Actual Illini fans have no need to defend anything against your accusations since you are the accuser in this forum and the burden of the proof should be on you. I can see why you would agree with the unfounded penalties put on the Uof I since you obviously believe in 'Guilty until proved innocent' - same method that was used in this case. Here's a link to one of the most disgusting, twisted, calculated smear campaigns of all time Jr. - the NCAA could not substantiate ANY OF IT.
http://underscorebleach.net/jotsheet/supplementary/bruce_pearl_ncaa_memo.html
Deon Thomas was so eager to prove this was a pack of lies that he volunteered to take a lie detector test, which he passed. The only recruiting violation the NCAA 'found' was Collins having given Thomas $10 to buy a pizza, which Thomas repaid (this was self reported by the UofI and not proved by any investigation).
"The tape from that phone call was never released to the public, but the memo that Pearl wrote to NCAA investigators was reproduced in newspapers, a version of which can be found (http://underscorebleach.net/jotsheet/supplementary/bruce_pearl_ncaa_memo.html). In it, Pearl alleges that Illinois coaches offered Thomas $80,000 cash and brand new Chevy Blazer if he suited up for the Illini.
Deon Thomas on Bruce Pearl:
"It's hard to forgive a snake." this is how Illini fans who actually lived through this debacle feel about this and it only makes it more annoying when fools like you maintain the idiocy of that situation.
Wenalway,
Here's some other reading material for your enjoyment:
http://grubbhub.wordpress.com/2008/03/20/pearl-before-swinesounds-about-right/
And a quote from someone like you who believes in 'guilty until proved innocent' - the accusers didn't have to prove guilt, we had to prove innocence:
"[The NCAA] wound up not having a finding," Pearl says. "But they didn't say [Illinois was] innocent."
From the LA Times:
"But under Henson, the Illini also were placed on a three-year probation by the NCAA for recruiting violations in 1990, although NCAA officials said there was no evidence to substantiate more serious allegations about offering cash and cars to recruits."
Thanks for illustrating my point, although you are blaming the wrong person for dragging this situation out again. Last I checked, the column made mention of this, as if we should be sticking pins into Digger Phelps dolls 21 years later.
If you and others are really so concerned about college athletics, then why not stop beating a long dead horse and actually back some action for today? My suggestion would be to join the effort to destroy the BCS in college football. Along the way, you might even get to take a shot at Slive.
Locally, you could discourage the banner-wavers from putting teams like Mississippi in the preseason top 10, as was done last season, or Tennessee and Auburn in the preseason top 20, as was done the year before. Unlike college basketball, those polls play a role in the postseason.
Sorry, but I have no control over how the NCAA handles its investigations. Again, though, the point is, was, and always shall be the violations were significant. Not minor. You and others can keep saying the most serious allegations were thrown out, but that does not change the point.
wenalay
nice try, but your faux news approach to just using an echo chamber to repeat an already debunked claim does not pass the laugh test.
If Deon took money, why wasn't he charged? and where was the blazer?
Why was Bruce Pearl's name never mentioned in the NCAA's report?
Why did the NCAA not look into the 4+ minutes of missing tape from Bruce Pearl (comparing his own phone records with the doctored tape he provided to the NCAA)?
Why did the NCAA never look at Iowa's payments to Renaldo Kyles to help recruit Deon?
Why did the NCAA never look at Pearl showing up in Amsterdam while the Simeon team was
participating in an international tournament, paying for meals, and driving Deon and three teammates around town in a rented car?
Why did the NCAA never issues anything with regard to Digger Phelps' and LaPhonso Ellis' lies and distortions regarding Ellis' recruitment? both of which have since admitted they just made stuff up. Ask the former Illinois SID who had some choice words for Digger back in the day (Tate can speak to this for sure, this is why Digger was afraid to come to Champaign for years)
point in fact, the NCAA never came up with a smoking gun against Deon, or the program. but there were indeed minor violations according to the NCAA, including
- Jimmy Collins giving Deon Thomas or Irvin Small $20.00 for a pizza
- assistant coaches talking to recruits during dark periods.
but point in fact, which you can choose to ignore in all your profound knowledge and wisdom, when the NCAA announced its findings for the public, it admitted that all the major charges brought by Iowa and Notre Dame could not be proven to be true. the report can be found. maybe read it before shooting off your mouth again.
but on the heels of the Mike White football disaster, even going back to the slush fund, the NCAA dropped the hammer on the program, saying they were convinced that Illinois was guilty anyways.
but hey, thanks for playing
Wow -- you guys need to boost that reading comprehension.
I have a neutral, unbiased article that says the violations were significant. Not minor. You have a biased columnist that says they were minor.
Gee -- which should we believe?
Also, someone claims Phelps and Ellis admitted to lying. Where's the proof of that?
And I could use the same "straw man" arguments. If Deon and the school were innocent, why did he sit out a year? Why did the program get probation and lose a year of postseason play? Why were there restrictions on Jimmy Collins' recruiting?
These are the types of questions that won't be answered by bitter fans who blame the officials for every loss and who bash players like Bill Cole out of extreme ignorance in the post-game radio show and by bitter columnists with agendas.
Also, the Associated Press article from Nov. 7, 1990, says even AD John Mackovic found rule violations. That article also says "significant violations occurred."
I'm sure the people here would have uncovered this with their own research, though. I'll provide the link:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1243&dat=19901107&id=JtU9AAAAIBAJ&sjid=hoYDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4604,3208167
Let me know if you need help with the reading and the comprehension.
You keep saying significant violations occurred Wenalway. What were they? This great piece of reporting by the N Y Times didn't say what they were? How do you know that reporter didn't have an agenda. You haven't shown one fact. You say Tate is biased and has an agenda. Maybe this times columnist is the same one that tried to accuse Zook of cheating. The only one here with an agenda is you squawk boy.
Yeah, you nailed it. I am Bruce Pearl. I take time out from coaching my overrated SEC team to post these comments.
Rd1989: The Google link brings up an article that spells out what the violations were. If that's not enough for you, then I don't think anything would be.
And z, I hate to break this, but I eat cobalt for breakfast. Also, did you know there are one-zero kinds of people: those who understand the binary system, and those who don't?
They're in the article at the Google link, illiterate. They have been posted. I am not going to retype all of it here for you, but one of the violations involved incomplete loan applications filed with a car dealer in Decatur.
If you can't spotlight that article and read it, then there's really not much hope for you. You would be the bozo if you are unable to do that much.
That's funny -- I just copied the Google link into my browser, and it brought up the article. All you have to do is copy the URL and paste it. Is that really too much for you?
You must be illiterate. I do find it funny that people like you who can't be bothered to get the facts insist other people are the liars.
You're simply ignorant and don't want to take the time to get the facts. There's really not much I can do for you. The article with the info is right there. If you are too dumb to access it, then as I said before, there's not much hope for you.
The facts are in the article. You are just not skilled enough to copy the URL into a browser.
I already retyped one of the violations for you. If you want the rest, you'll have to get someone to show you how to use the computer.
And you are the one who wants to claim people are lying, full of s**t, etc. You probably need to get a lot smarter if you want those claims to stick. Right now, you look pretty foolish.
well, you refuse to answer questions and just keep repeating the already debunked talking points, but to your pointless questions.
the key phrase from the actual NCAA report
"When the enforcement staff presented this case to the committee, the staff alleged serious violations in the university's recruitment of two prospective student-athletes. Although the information relating to these allegations was sufficient for the enforcement staff reasonably to conclude it should present the information to the committee [NCAA Bylaw 32.5.1.2], the committee determined after considering all the information presented at the hearing that the standard of proof prescribed in Bylaw 32.6.6.2 had not been satisfied."
If Deon and the school were innocent, why did he sit out a year?
Athletic Director John Mackovic would have to answer that question. he made that decision, apparently on recommendation of NCAA lawyer Mike Slive. kind of like how people who are charge with crimes can spend time in jail while waiting to go to trial.
Why did the program get probation and lose a year of postseason play?
Not so good with the reading or Illinois history huh? surprising for such a big, unbiased fan. This was the 3rd time in less than 10 years the school had been before the NCAA (other 2 were football). NCAA applied its no longer used repeat offender provision and issued probation
Why were there restrictions on Jimmy Collins' recruiting?
again, ask Mackovic. but it was just Collins. the entire staff could not do off campus recruiting. but Collins was the recruiting coordinator, and the issues cited by the NCAA revolved around recruiting. all off campus recruiting and on campus visits were eliminated for all, so nice fact checking there.
is that it? anything else Iowa fan?
your silly little questions were answered. guarantee you will not answer any of the questions posed to you.
I have posted links to two articles that say the violations were significant. You must be illiterate or have serious reading comprehension problems if you are still denying that. Or you have no problem with looking foolish by denying something that has been posted.
I posted those questions as examples of the "straw man" arguments your side keeps trying to use. If it was really so obvious that probation stemmed from the repeat offender provision, then why do you guys keep expressing amazement about the result?
In other words, you are now making my argument for me. Congratulations. In true Internet idiot fashion, you have denied the obvious points, and you have presented more evidence to hurt your own point (whatever that is -- it's pretty unclear, other than you want to prop up a biased column that's already been proved wrong multiple times).
Moral of the story: If you are illiterate and can't make an argument, then it's best to stay away from the computer. And probably it's a good idea to avoid the post-game call-in shows, too. Saying: "I've been an Illini fan for 37 years" isn't much of a point.
If you read it, then why did you keep asking for facts to be posted?
If you wanted to look idiotic, you succeeded. If you were trying to be humorous, you failed.
Likely you are just trying to deflect the fact that you and your group are so dumb that you started making my argument for me.
Comments
IlliniHQ.com embraces discussion of Illini sports. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. we reserve the right to remove any comment at its discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.