Heath's Random Thoughts

I know, I know, its a been almost 3 weeks since the Rose Bowl and I am finally just getting around to writing about it. My delay is partly due to the drubbing the Illini took at the hands of the USC Trojans. As Kelly can attest to, I was none to happy following that game and to ensure I could make a fair assessment of what happened, I wanted to give myself plenty of time to cool off before I gave my take on the game.

As many of you may know the Illini football team made an improbably run through the regular season to earn an invite to the grandaddy of the bowl games the Rose Bowl. This was after only winning 4 games over the past three seasons. The Illini came into this season with some momentum after playing well the last half the previous season losing some close games to some very good teams (e.g. tOSU). Expectations were high but no one was anticipating a trip to a BCS bowl. Most of us were settling to be happy with an invite to a mid tier bowl and to see some progress finally start to show up on the field. Well after upsets of 3 ranked teams and some close losses to some good teams the Illini found themselves in second place in the Big Ten to finish up the regular season. They did so by some playing hard nosed defense and putting up some gaudy numbers on offense. The Rose Bowl committee wanted to stick with the tradition of inviting a Pac-10 and Big 10 team to the bowl and since Ohio State was slated for the National Championship the invite fell to the 2nd place Big 10 team. On the other side, the USC Trojans got the invite after having a few bad losses early in the season, even though many felt they had finished the season so convincingly that they deserved an invite to the National Championship.

Well, right out the gate the Illini were 14 point underdogs. USC had a track record of winning big bowl games and had a lot of depth and talent on their team. The Illini were still young and trying to find their identity. Well the weeks leading up to the game were full of analysts saying that Illinois had no chance unless they played a near perfect game on offense.

Once the game began it was somewhat obvious that our guys were a little overwhelmed, never being to a bowl game most of them didn't know how to handle media circus and nerves appeared to be winning out. But given all this the team was still within striking distance of the highly vaunted Trojans at half time. Junior running back Rashard Mendenhall played beautifully breaking off a 76 yard run for a touch down to get the Illini back in the game and later taking a pass 50 yards to get within scoring range. Unfortunately, due to some sloppy ball protection by several of the receivers we were never able to capitalize on any of the big plays. I have to give USC credit though, they were excellent forcing turnovers and you could tell they were well coached. One bright spot was that the Illini Defense never let the USC offense run away with the game. They made several stops and forced a few turnovers of their own. Unfortunately, the Offense was never able to stay on the field long enough to give the D a significant and it showed in the 4th quarter where you could see the Defense wearing down. After that it was all over but the crying as USC ran up the score on our exhausted defense.

One thing I would like to point out was the lack of class by several of the USC players. In the first half, when it looked like USC might start running with the game early, there were several instance of the players on the sidelines dancing and taunting the Illini players. There was also an incident in the first half where one of the USC players decided to do a flip into the endzone for a touchdown. Fortunately, this infuriated the USC head coach, Pete Carrol and he benched the player for the rest of the game. USC was penalized to for taunting 2 or 3 times in the game which I just find classless. I will say this, from what I could see, the Illini never bit on any of the taunting and seemed to do a pretty good job of ignoring it. I was happy to see that.

Final Analysis
So, the Illini got blown out and USC fans have been complaining ever since that they deserved to play a better opponent, plus the Michigan fans saying their team deserved to be there ahead of the Illini and would have put a better fight. This I just find funny from a team that lost to Appalachian State and played a terriblely ugly game against Illinois who lost the game more than the Wolverines won it.

Anyway, after I got over the frustration of the game I realized that this team is going nowhere but up. They are young with tons of talent, they have another top recruiting class coming in next year. They have now played in a big bowl and will know how to handle it better next time around. This is a lot better situation than we were in in 2002 when we were just coming off a bad loss to LSU in the Sugar Bowl. That team was full of seniors and we had no talent coming in from recruiting for the next couple of years. This year's team looks like a Big 10 contender for years to come and given another season or two you will start hearing about the Illini football team being consistently mentioned as a top 10 team.

I - L - L!!!!!

This last weekend a surprise in the bowl announcements occurred when the 9-3 Fighting Illini were invited to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, CA to face the USC Trojans on New Years Day. The Illini had finished the regular season tied for second with Michigan in the Big Ten and ranked 13 in the nation. There were several teams ranked ahead of them that did not get an invite to a BCS bowl and had less than 3 losses. Throw on top of this that Michigan had beat the Illini earlier in the season (a game I had the unfortunate privilege of seeing first hand) and were invited ahead of them.

The reasoning that the Tournament Of Roses bowl committee gave was that, traditionally the Rose bowl invites a PAC-10 team and a Big Ten team to compete in this annual bowl. Before the BCS (Bowl Champion Series) was implemented in the 90's it was always the case that the best team from each conference would attend. Once the Rose Bowl joined the 6 BSC bowl games this began to change. Since the Championship game will be played for the Sugar Bowl in New Orleans and the (eye role) Ohio State, who finished first in the Big Ten will be playing for a national Championship, the Rose Bowl had to choose the next best team in the Big Ten. This left them to choose between Illinois and Michigan who both tied, in record, for second place. Even though Michigan beat Illinois, the committee decided that Illinois had played a better season over all and had the best chance of making an exciting game against the heavily favored Trojans.

So now Illinois is slated to take on a Trojan team that is currently a 14 point favorite. Not many experts are giving Illinois a chance in this game siting USC's consistent experience playing in big games, a relatively higher talent level from player to player, and that Illinois has a fairly young and inexperienced group of players. I argue that Illinois has shown (at times) some real confidence and maturity beating Wisconsin when they were the number 5 team in the nation and later upsetting number 1 OSU. So they definitely have the tools to pull off a major upset.

Ultimately though, no matter what the outcome it has been an amazing run for this year's Illini. After winning on 4 games over the past 3 season prior to this one, Coach Zook has engineered a major turn around not only for this season but for the entire Illinois football program. This team will have even more talent coming in next season with experienced young players already on the roster, they should be one of the top ten teams in the nation starting next season. After enduring some really embarrassing seasons as an Illini fan its great to see our program moving in a positive direction. Now, lets just hope that coach Zook doesn't pull a Bill Self on us and use his success here as a stepping stone to another program. It would be great to see him show loyalty to a program and fan base that admires and gave him a chance after Florida gave him the boot.

I came across an article written by a Sports Illustrated columnist regarding Chief Illiniwek at the University of Illinois. In the article he references a recent use of the Chief symbol at the University's Homecoming this year. The NCAA required that all schools using a Native American symbol or mascot for their school were required to retire them or run the risk of being banned from hosting any post season tournaments at their schools or be allowed to participate in them. Now I am not writing to debate whether the NCAA even had any legal jurisdiction to force this policy on independent universities, I am writing because the author of the article shares his view on how the Chief should not be allowed to resurface for any reason. After the Chief being retired the Chancellor of UofI stated that the ban did not apply to homecoming festivities because it infringed on the rights of the students free speech. So, many floats and homecoming items were adorned with Chief emblems and cheered by Chief supporters.

Zirin (article author) goes on to compare the university and supports of the Chief to naive racists who don't understand what they are supporting. Now, I can't speak for other universities and how they treat their use of Native American emblems, but U0fI has always treated the Chief symbol with the utmost respect and honor. This is why you will only see the Chief during meticulously choreographed halftime performances. He does not run around during the game unfurling silly antics for the crowds amusement. In fact, during his halftime performance, fans would always gather in pride and cheer as the Chief performed. I personally found it exciting to be in the crowd as the fans cheered him on. No one was poking fun or laughing at him or what he stood for. For years, anti Chief supporters always tried to vilify supporters of the Chief as a group of racists who use the Chief as a way to put Native Americans down. It couldn't be more the opposite. Zirin goes on to state only white men have been allowed to portray the Chief through out the years, which couldn't be more inaccurate. This has never been a rule, it is true that primarily white men have been the Chief over the years, but mainly because they were the only ones who tried out. Lets also, not gloss over the fact that those who were selected to portray the Chief were also required to take courses on Native American history so they better understood what they were representing and to be sure they did it in a way that honored its history.

Now, with all of this being said, if it is overwhelmingly unpopular with Native Americans that the Chief exists then I would not stand in the way of retiring Chief Illiniwek. The problem has been that for years the only people who have protested the Chief where Ivory Tower academics and a primarily white activist group. After awhile the anti-Chief movement became an us against them mentality and lost sight of the feelings of true Native Americans. These images are not universally abhorred by Native Americans. Case in point being the Florida State University Seminole symbol. The Seminole tribe in Florida has officially approved FSU to use their likeness and even has a Seminole representative participate as the symbol. So, this is not always a black and white issue. There are also plenty of cases where Native Americans are not honored by organizations like the Washington Redskins and Cleveland Indians, which I am still not sure how they can get away with it, but that is another story all together.

Ultimately, I understand the NCAA could not have a partial rule that said some schools could have Native American symbols and some could not. It would be too difficult to enforce such a policy. The only exception that I know of today is the aforementioned FSU Seminole and that is because the University and tribe signed a legally binding agreement that the NCAA couldn't touch. So at the end of the day I understand the ruling. I will still miss the Chief and the rush of pride I would get when he appeared out of the marching band formation to lead the crowd in school spirit.

The part I will always resent is how the anti-Chief supporters treat me like I am a racist because I wear my U0fI clothing with Chief logos. I do not wear these things to poke fun at Native Americans. I wear them out of pride. I am part Native American, and probably not enough to count in some people's eyes, but I always found it a point of pride to be able to associate Chief Illiniwek with a small part of my background and never once felt that how he was portrayed was degrading to me or full blooded Native Americans. Our country spent years attempting to eradicate the Native American way of life, I see the Chief and similar displays as a sign that we now acknowledge what wonderful history Native Americans have and in some way we want to be part of that rather than destroy it. Any way that's just my two cents feel free to add yours. I am open to all arguments on both sides.