In its simplest sense, a brand is the essence of a person or organization’s story. It can be as simple as a word of phrase (like “40 minutes of hell”) or an iconic image (think Laettner’s shot against Kentucky in 1992) or player (a la UNC and Michael Jordan). Traditions (Rock, Chalk, Jayhawk!) and senses of place (Tobacco Road) help round out the story. Of course, winning must be the overarching theme of all these elements.
Today’s media, across all of its modes, specializes in telling – and selling – such stories, especially in sports. Media does much more than provide us with broadcasts of the games. It shapes the actual games themselves (TV timeout, anyone?) and how we perceive them through its incessant analysis and repackaging of iconic moments in marketing them.
The programs whose brands lend themselves to such treatment perform the best in today’s environment. Just look at the programs and coaches (yes, coaches are brands) in this year’s Sweet 16 up through the Final Four. Most are bluebloods, or conversely, have histories as spoilers.
Other measures, like total wins and total NCAA appearances (which some have pointed to in arguing that Illinois is a top program) simply don’t matter as much – mostly because the TV coverage doesn’t focus on them. Such accomplishments are sometimes mentioned as asides, but only when a team adds to them. Beyond that, how many McDonald’s All-Americans spend their time trawling through the NCAA record books?
It’s not the history so much as the story. And the story is usually centered on NCAA tourney performance. Players and fans alike want to be plugged into an exciting yet well-known narrative with a glorious past, a meaningful present (i.e. you’re good NOW) and – most importantly – a future that they believe they can shape. It’s about adding more iconic moments and memories – not just metrics.
The Illinois Brand (or lack thereof)
So, what is Illinois Basketball’s brand these days? What words, ideas or images come immediately to mind? Let’s start with recent performance. Here’s my list: Frustration. Lack of intensity and toughness. Lack of basketball IQ. Inconsistency. Recruiting misses. Underachievement. The sound of Bruce Weber incessantly nagging everyone’s balls off on the court. Players who tune him out. Players with attitude and motivation issues. And a serial lack of clutch play that is absolutely astounding – ASTOUNDING! – in its depth and virulence within the program. (For brevity, I substitute “balls” for “lack of clutch.” It’s harsh, and I readily concede the point that every Illini player in history is/was a better player by a multiple of 10 or 20 than I ever was, but I can’t help it.)OK. Let’s move onto some of the peripheral stuff. The orange uniforms look good, but they’re hardly unique. (Syracuse calls themselves “The Orange” for fuck’s sake). Assembly Hall can rock at times, but it’s also deader than a doornail when the team is down and it becomes an cold and empty cavern by the end of most losses. This year we saw its limits for motivating the Illini or intimidating the opposition.
Sense of place? Try corn fields and pig shit – fair or not. Chambana is great for students who love getting drunk and laid, but it can’t compete with places like Indianapolis and Richmond for grown-up charms. (If only Shaka Smart’s wife was into quarter beers…) Even cities like Columbus and Madison are state capitals – with buzzes of their own beyond their universities.
Moving on to traditions: Illinois put all of its eggs into the Chief basket, and now we’re ass out. Regardless of your feelings about this, the NCAA’s opinion is the only one that matters. What else ? A tacky orange blazer that adds that extra dollop of humiliation to big-game losses? A terrible comb-over?
At first glance, history appears to offer some hope. Most NCAA fans remember the Flying Illini, while Deron Williams is keeping the memory of the 2005 runner-up team alive as a star in the NBA. However, what do these two teams have in common more than anything else? The same thing they have in common with ALL Illinois Hoops teams before and after: They didn’t win it all. In fact, both seem to make the rounds on “Best Teams that Didn’t Win” lists. The subtext is underachievement and losing – which reinforces a negative brand trait.
Let’s boil it down even further to epic and iconic moments. What Illini tourney highlights do you see most often in the TV montages? Sean Higgins’ virtual buzzer beater in ‘89? The Austin Peay debacle? As exciting as our comeback win over Arizona in the regional finals was, there’s no 10-second, ready-made buzzer-beater clip for it. You have to sit through all 3:20 of the run and then the OT to really appreciate it. Compare that with the 1983 NC State put-back and manic Jimmy V clip.
In fact, the NC State brand provides a great example of what Illinois lacks. With Duke and UNC in state, the Wolfpack could easily accept a role as North Carolina’s version of RC Cola. But NC State has built an effective brand by maximizing its assets. They have a history of outperforming their seed in the NCAA tourney – including the championship win in ’83. Since that year, they’ve made the Sweet 16 five times – four of those as a 5-seed or lower. In 2005 they were a 10, this year, an 11. People remember that shit. They’ve disappointed with plenty of early exits, too, but those memories stick longer with the fan base than with fans in general. In Jimmy V, they also have a colorful historical figure with a heroic and ultimately tragic story. And they have that piece of tape from ’83 that encapsulates it all.
Today, they’re still North Carolina’s third wheel, but also its perpetual gritty underdog – fighting for respect and pulling the periodic surprise. When they’re down (which they are, from time to time) they can draw on these assets to reinvent themselves (always in the same mold) as a fresh and trendy alternative for recruits that feel snubbed by Duke and UNC, or want to go their own way. This year, they parlayed these elements into some McD’s recruits and a run to the Sweet 16 – and that was with Alabama cast-off Mark Gottfried. Would you take that, Illini fans?
I’m not saying that I wish we were N.C. State. Really, I’m not. When you actually do the research, you see that Illinois has been a much more successful program in terms of wins and NCAA appearances. But look what Illinois has done in those appearances: Only twice, in 2004 and 2011, have they outperformed their seeding in the NCAA. (Tourney seedings began in 1979.) In those years, they beat only the next higher seed in their bracket (a 4 and an 8, respectively). Conversely, they have lost to lower seeds 14 times – 14 TIMES!!! – in their 24 NCAA appearances since 1981. Add that to their two “all-time best losers” and you’ve got a brand that trends toward missed opportunities, pratfalls and, well, “losers” – even when the stats say “winner.”
Groce and a New Illini Brand
So, what can a program do when it’s short on some of the brand assets that other schools rely on to attract coaches and recruits? Fortunately, there ARE options – some of which Illinois is already trying.First, you can hire a coach that can bring some of his own brand power to the table. This can include personality, style of play and perhaps some history as a Cinderella. Both Smart and Stevens bring great stories to the party. But both men realize that those stories are their primary assets, and neither wants his to take a Dan Monson or Todd Lickliter turn. Apparently, the current Illinois brand isn’t worth the risk. Perhaps a couple of years wherein a team like John Groce’s Ohio Bobcats steals their invites to the Big Dance with conference tourney upsets will fill them with regret, but the speed and reliability of the coaching carousel in the NCAA makes that unlikely. Eventually, however, a school like Illinois will find an up-and-comer who’s eager, greedy and impatient enough to grab the gold now. Bill Self sure did.
Second, you can commit – through choice of coach – to a style of play that can help attract the recruits you want, and put fans in the seats – even in down years. That was the worst part of the late Bruce Weber Era: the games were boring and tough to watch – even when they won. Take away that winning, and watching games was truly a joyless exercise. No great players to watch after Deron and Dee. No fluid ball movement or easy baskets to break up the epic scoring droughts. No pressing D to generate fast breaks. Just ugly, desperate, clutching slog-fests where nobody could hit open shots or, oddly enough, get to the free-throw line. At least one recruiting insider in Chicago has remarked the recruits didn’t enjoy watching these games any more than I did, and weren’t itching to play in Weber’s system.
Third, you can create a player profile based on that style of play and recruit those players as hard as you can. Trying to become the “Chicago Public League South” won’t work, because Chicago produces all different types of players. You don’t have to compete for all of them – just the ones that fit your system. You still won’t get all of them, but system-based recruiting helps you convince the players who fit you that you’re the best fit for them. Don’t waste time on mismatches or character problems if they don’t fit the system. If people like the system, it can give you some cover from criticism for, say, passing a guy like Jereme Richmond.
Wow, this piece has really droned on and on. Sorry. Let’s move to a fast finish.
While this coaching search has demonstrated how deep in the toilet our brand is now, here’s what this process, and a John Groce hire, can do in the middle and long term:
1.
Illinois has money and is willing to spend it to be good. Even though this year’s targets took a pass, at least some in the next crop will remember this and put Illinois on their lists.2.
Groce plays a style that kids and fans like. This can help keep our current kids here, and keep our present commitments (so that we don’t have to sit through something like what Indiana just went through.) Finally, the same level of defensive effort that Weber’s kids put into man to man can generate easy buckets, instead of empty possessions of their own in a thumb-sucker offense.3.
Groce is a hands-on recruiter. You need that when your brand lacks the assets that other programs have. Even if he strikes out, he’ll be out there – unlike predecessors who sometimes appeared – fairly or not – to disdain the process. This is the biggest reason I’m glad Smart didn’t reconsider. If recruiting ANYWHERE gives you pause, good luck.4.
Groce has captured the media’s attention with his odd brand of geeky intensity. He’ll be a regular on ESPN and CBS. The helps keep the profile high.5.
Groce has a history of performing well in tournaments – both conference and the NCAAs. This actually jives with one element of the current Illini brand – success in the B1G tourney. That’s money – in more ways than one. People remember it. Ask MSU fans what they’d rather have this year – their quarter share of the B1G title this year, or OSU’s tickets to NOLA?6.
Even if Groce underperforms, you’ve still invested some brand equity in Illinois as a place that kids LIKE playing. Intensity, an attacking style and toughness can carry forward as criteria for the next coach – because we WILL need another one someday.Each of these can work as double-edged swords. In particular, there may be no finer line than the one between “character” and “clown.” Some years, it may simply be the difference between 9-9 and 8-10.
The larger point is that Illinois has to build a brand that’s bigger than any one coach. This hire will play a major role in that – no doubt. But getting the KIND of guy we want is more important than getting the actual guy at this point. That’s why the courting of Smart and Stevens lent such a chaotic air to this search. Each guy would build a totally different program. That tells me that while Thomas talks about brand, he hasn’t done the preliminary brain work required to build one.
Let’s hope that the road to choice #6 has set him straight.
Posts
