Illinois
What Bret Bielema said after No. 20 Illinois lost to No. 1 Oregon football
EUGENE — No. 1 Oregon defeated No. 20 Illinois 38-9 Saturday at Autzen Stadium.
Bret Bielema recapped the loss for Illinois (6-2, 3-2 Big Ten), which hosts Minnesota next week.
Below is a transcript of Bielema’s postgame press conference.
No. 1 Oregon (7-0, 4-0 Big Ten) vs. No. 20 Illinois (6-1, 3-1)
- When: Saturday, Oct. 26
- Time: 12:30 p.m. PT
- Where: Autzen Stadium, Eugene
- TV channel: CBS
- Stream: Watch this game live for FREE with Fubo (free trial) or with DirecTV Stream (free trial). If you already have a cable provider, use your login information to watch this game on cbssports.com.
- Oregon Ducks football 2024 season schedule, scores
- Sign up for The Ducks Beat newsletter
BRET BIELEMA
Opening Statement…
“Give credit to Oregon. Obviously a really good football team, and they played very, very well especially that first half. I was very disappointed in the results of the first half. I take ownership on that as a head coach. Obviously didn’t have enough preparation or execution. I really felt good about our work week and the energy from our guys going in. We talked all week about this crew…the way they want to play the game, offense, defense. When they strike, they strike hard and fast. We put ourselves into a position to be where we are. The first quarter was just too much to overcome. I went in at halftime and basically went in to both sides of the ball and the players and said, ‘Hey, I’m going to treat it like this: we won the coin toss, we’re taking the ball, we’re going to play the second half like we’re starting over.’ I thought our guys took that to heart and did some things. We just couldn’t capitalize on it in time. We had two or three opportunities where we walked away with zero points inside the red area. You’re not going to win many games, let alone (against) the No. 1 team in the country. Several guys got banged up. I don’t really know anything update wise. A couple guys with head issues, a couple guys with soft tissue things. I don’t think there’s anything significant or season ending, but we’ll see where we’re at when I have more information on that.”
On areas of disappointment in defense…
“Probably tackling. I think we have to leverage the ball and get the ball down. We knew No. 15 was an explosive player. We had to know where he was on every formation, and he was the guy that had that first score. Came all the way across from one sideline to the next. I think our preparation…we have to understand when we’re playing a player of that caliber we can’t give normal answers. We have to have a better understanding of what we’re trying to do to win the game. Some growing experience there for us on how we game plan. Then, obviously, with a quarterback of his stature, he was pretty much able to complete his passes at will. He was very efficient with the ball on early downs and third downs as well. So, a lot of things that hopefully we will hopefully make corrections for.”
On Luke Altmyer’s performance…
“Luke is a tremendous competitor. I would like to have come up with some points. I think that the interception was one he probably wishes he had back. I don’t know if he didn’t see the coverage there, but he’s been so steady for us. We’re here where we are today because of what he’s done and we will continue to move forward because of that but everybody has a lot to learn. I think we have to do a better job of protecting him, making sure we can give him the answers. If there’s breaks in pressure, we have to give him an answer so he doesn’t get hit. Also, if we can do anything with him to change the pocket or do some things right. He’s got very good feet, he’s very athletic and the guys can continue to play around him.”
On answering defensive pressure…
“I know they changed up one pressure today, what we call ‘pop a guy out.’ They brought a full man today, seven-man protection. In the answer, we weren’t there and [Altmyer] had to get rid of it in a hurry. Also, there was a couple of red-area sequences where we broke down on protection, as well as the delivery of the run game. It was frustrating but I was very happy that our guys responded in the second half. We’re not trying to get a consolation prize, but I told the guys at halftime that I needed them to show up, play and compete and they did that.”
On redzone breakdowns…
“In particular, there was some of that in the low red. Those are almost like two-point plays in execution. We have to look closely at what we’re doing there. We have to change the pocket. We have to do something to move them. The execution of the run game down low. A lot of teams will try to just run the ball in rather than have any chance of throw game. I think there was one time where we ran Josh McCray up inside and gained four or five. Maybe we need to take a closer look at the run game in the red area.”
On refocusing after loss…
“I think the things that got us to where we are now are what we have to go forward with. Whatever our record was. We were 6-1 last week. We’re trying to go 1-0 every week. Now we’re a 6-2 football team. Everybody is going to have opinions on what I need to do. I think our guys know that Minnesota is coming to town in a rematch game for us. That could mean a lot of things down the road. I think these guys enjoy playing together. It definitely hurt them today. You could see it at halftime. I liked the energy they gave coming out at the half. Obviously, a lot of long faces in there tonight, as they should be. We’ll have to make sure that Oregon doesn’t get us twice. We’re going to have to do what we have to do on Sunday, get a flush, take a jump heading into Minnesota like we do with every game. Monday will be a great day for our guys to reset and come back in on Tuesday and get a work week.”
On difficulty of Oregon’s speed…
“Especially at certain positions, you can tell on film, offense, defense, special teams. They take a lot of pride in that. They strike in all three phases. I think that was very apparent in the first quarter and even towards the end of the second. They put themselves in a position to make multiple scores. Defensively, we didn’t have the right answers putting pressure on. [Gabriel] was just getting the ball out so quickly, they weren’t going to let you get him. That is something we have to identify and make sure that we’re playing out of coverage.”
On secondary defense…
“Jaheim Clarke has been a guy that I would say has been continually impressive since fall camp. When Tyson Rooks went down, when Torrie Cox went out, and Kaleb Patterson went out…those three guys were out of the game before halftime. Those are difficult things to heal. Those guys came in by committee. Tyler Strain also went out, so our backup for Xavier Scott went down, so that’s what brought Rooks in there. I like the fact that he got that nice pick and made an advancement. Got the chance to change the game a little bit there. Obviously, we couldn’t capitalize on it offensively, but he did his part to make that moment.”
— James Crepea covers the Oregon Ducks and Big Ten. Listen to the Ducks Confidential podcast or subscribe to the Ducks Roundup newsletter.
Illinois
Illinois vs Iowa prediction, analysis, Elite Eight expert picks for men’s March Madness
The men’s 2026 NCAA Tournament continues with Elite Eight action Saturday with No. 3 Illinois vs. No. 9 Iowa on the two-game schedule.
USA TODAY Sports’ college basketball experts have analyzed all the angles and determined a path to victory for each side. Here’s everything you need to know before the Elite Eight matchup tips off.
USA TODAY has a team of journalists covering the men’s NCAA Tournament to keep you up to date with every point scored, rebound grabbed and game won in the 68-team tournament.
Illinois will win Elite Eight game vs Iowa if…
- John Leuzzi: It replicates what it did defensively against Houston.
- Jordan Mendoza: It controls the interior.
- Ehsan Kassim: Wagler can win the matchup against Stirtz.
- Austin Curtright: If its defense plays like it did against Houston.
Iowa will win Elite Eight game vs Illinois if…
- John Leuzzi: It limits Illinois on offensive rebounds, and second chance opportunities.
- Jordan Mendoza: it’s knocking down 3-pointers.
- Ehsan Kassim: Hawkeyes can make the game slower paced and Illinois misses shots.
- Austin Curtright: Its bench contributors of Alvaro Folgueiras, Tate Sage and others continue their strong play.
Illinois vs Iowa: 1 Stat to watch
- John Leuzzi: Bennett Stirtz vs. Keaton Wagler at the point guard battle.
- Jordan Mendoza: 3-point shot.
- Ehsan Kassim: Illinois 3-point shooting.
- Austin Curtright: Illinois’ defense has been outstanding in the NCAA Tournament, despite ranking outside the top 20 in KenPom’s adjusted defensive efficiency.
Illinois vs Iowa Elite Eight prediction
- John Leuzzi: Iowa
- Jordan Mendoza: Illinois
- Ehsan Kassim: Illinois
- Austin Curtright: Illinois
3 Illinois vs 9 Iowa
- Opening Moneyline: Illinois (-275), Iowa (+227)
- Opening Spread: Illinois (-6.5)
- Opening Total: 139.5
How to Watch Illinois vs Iowa in the Elite Eight
No. 3 Illinois takes on No. 9 Iowa at Toyota Center on March 28 at 6:09 PM The game is airing on TBS.
Stream March Madness on Sling
2026 Men’s March Madness full schedule
See the schedule, live scores and results for all of the NCAA Tournament action here.
- March 17-18: First Four
- March 19-20: First Round
- March 21-22: Second Round
- March 26-27: Sweet 16
- March 28-29: Elite 8
- April 4: Final Four
- April 6: National Championship
Illinois
Bears stadium deal should not include lawmaker perks or raise property taxes
Publicly funded stadium deals can involve questionable incentives for politicians. The megaprojects bill in Illinois would drive up neighbors’ property taxes.
Any deal between Illinois and the Chicago Bears for a new stadium must avoid giveaways to lawmakers and property tax increases for others.
The Bears own the former Arlington Park Racecourse in Arlington Heights and have said they’re also considering Northwest Indiana for a stadium development. A bill in the Illinois General Assembly would offer property tax breaks to such “megaprojects.”
Agreements for publicly funded stadiums in other cities often have included luxury suites and free tickets for lawmakers. Local officials in Kansas City have been criticized for getting access to tickets and suites during ongoing stadium negotiations. Officials in Arizona have repeatedly used free access to publicly funded stadiums to host guests.
A bill in Ohio would prohibit state lawmakers from knowingly accepting free or discounted tickets to pro sports events. The proposal comes amid negotiations with the Cleveland Browns over public funding for a new stadium.
Offering free admission and luxury suites to lawmakers who make decisions about publicly funding stadiums creates a clear conflict of interest.
From a taxpayer perspective, such perks can divert public resources if lawmakers have an incentive to offer a team or other megaproject a tax break when that revenue could go toward broadly shared public benefits. From a free-market standpoint, these arrangements distort competition by subsidizing select teams and projects rather than encouraging municipalities to make themselves attractive for private investment.
Illinois legislators should ensure that any stadium agreement with the Bears does not include free tickets or luxury accommodations for lawmakers.
Perks for politicians are only half the story. The proposed incentive package in Springfield, HB 910 House Amendment 1, would be devastating for taxpayers.
Much of the current discussion revolves around the massive property tax reductions the bill would provide for so-called megaprojects as an attempt to spur economic development.
While negotiating targeted tax incentives is bad policy to begin with, the legislation would make Illinois’ property tax crisis even worse for other taxpayers. Although approved megaprojects would pay steeply discounted property taxes, a clause in the bill allows a taxing body to count the cash value of the megaproject in its total assessed value.
In other words, taxing bodies can still increase taxes as if the project were paying normal tax rates, generating increased revenue, but the project would not pay those higher taxes. Neighboring businesses, homeowners and renters would pay more to make up for the team’s discount.
Here is some of what’s in the bill, which has passed out of committee and could be called for a full House vote any time:
- To qualify, a project must have at least $500 million in eligible costs, which can include the property purchase and can be retroactive up to five years before the megaproject certificate is issued. The project must be completed within seven to 10 years, but that can be extended by five years. The site must be operated for at least 20 years; the tax incentive would last at least 23 years and up to 40 years.
- The megaproject’s assessment would be frozen so that its property tax bill is calculated on the “base year” of the project, meaning the value of the property before any improvements, such as a stadium.
- However, for purposes of issuing bonds and property tax extension limitation calculations, the taxing body could use the current fair cash value of the property. In other words, new development, which is generally exempt from Property Tax Extension Limitation Laws, would allow for the levy to grow beyond the limited rate, which other taxpayers will have to cover.
The bill’s “incentive agreement” allows for separate payments from the megaproject entity, such as the Bears, or an alternative source, to affected taxing bodies in addition to property taxes bill. The payment amount would be negotiated with taxing bodies.
Illinoisans already pay the highest property taxes in the nation. Homeowners in Arlington Heights pay average annual property taxes of more than $8,000. HB910 would make it even worse. One simple solution is to strike this language from the bill:
“Projects to be valued at fair cash value for purposes of bonded indebtedness and limitations on property tax extensions. Projects to which an assessment freeze applies pursuant to this Division shall be valued at their fair cash value for purposes of calculating a municipality’s general obligation bond limits and a taxing district’s limitation on tax extensions.”
Removing that language would ensure that businesses, homeowners and renters in the megaproject area would not face higher property taxes because of an incentive agreement.
Illinois
Obituary for Tessie Lee Woods at Carl E. Ponds Funeral Home Inc.
-
Detroit, MI1 week agoDrummer Brian Pastoria, longtime Detroit music advocate, dies at 68
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago‘Youth’ Twitter review: Ken Karunaas impresses audiences; Suraj Venjaramoodu adds charm; music wins praise | – The Times of India
-
Sports6 days agoIOC addresses execution of 19-year-old Iranian wrestler Saleh Mohammadi
-
New Mexico5 days agoClovis shooting leaves one dead, four injured
-
Business1 week agoDisney’s new CEO says his focus is on storytelling and creativity
-
Technology5 days agoYouTube job scam text: How to spot it fast
-
Tennessee4 days agoTennessee Police Investigating Alleged Assault Involving ‘Reacher’ Star Alan Ritchson
-
Texas1 week agoHow to buy Houston vs. Texas A&M 2026 March Madness tickets