By my count, 14-31 in games of 5 points, less or OT.

[DanL53]

2010-11: 2-7 and that includes a win over #6 ranked team and losses to the #2 and #13 ranked teams.
2011-12: 4-3 including W over #16
2012-13: 2-7 including L's to #5, 22, 23, 8
2013-14: 2-8 including L's to #17, 4, 7, 16
2014-15: 3-4 including W over #12 and L to #23
2015-16: 1-2 including L to #4

Take out top 25 ranked opponents and the overall is 11-19. One thing that stands out to me is we've played some really good teams right down to the wire.

I'd welcome anyone to double check my counts.

 

[And1Hawk]

Good stuff and closing out games has seemed to be an issue for us.

The two thoughts I have are

1. What are these same stats for the other power 5 schools especially in the B1G. I realize no one wants to compile this but that would be interesting to see.

2. Are the failures a matter of talent to make a shot or schematic in terms of getting a good shot to make or both? On the flip side talent or toughness to get a stop on the D end? Free throw shooting at the end of games? Turnovers? Rebounding?

 

[DenverTurtle]

Good stuff and closing out games has seemed to be an issue for us.

The two thoughts I have are

1. What are these same stats for the other power 5 schools especially in the B1G. I realize no one wants to compile this but that would be interesting to see.

2. Are the failures a matter of talent to make a shot or schematic in terms of getting a good shot to make or both? On the flip side talent or toughness to get a stop on the D end? Free throw shooting at the end of games? Turnovers? Rebounding?

I think it is every one of the things you mention in point 2 except for schematics. The toughness and athleticism of this team is improving dramatically over the next several years. If we continue to come up short in close games 2 years from now then I will stand corrected that schematics are not a part of the problem.

Get just one more defensive rebound and they beat ISU.

 

[And1Hawk]

I think it is every one of the things you mention in point 2 except for schematics. The toughness and athleticism of this team is improving dramatically over the next several years. If we continue to come up short in close games 2 years from now then I will stand corrected that schematics are not a part of the problem.

Get just one more defensive rebound and they beat ISU.

Thanks for the insight.

We actually got a defensive rebound up 8 with 2 minutes to go (Jok) and they immediately fouled. The issue was it was only their 4th team foul (9-3 team fouls at that point) so this started the imbounding the ball fiasco against the press. We got it in a second time but they fouled again for #5. Then the turnovers, etc. started to happen.

 

[DanL53]

Good stuff and closing out games has seemed to be an issue for us.

The two thoughts I have are

1. What are these same stats for the other power 5 schools especially in the B1G. I realize no one wants to compile this but that would be interesting to see.

2. Are the failures a matter of talent to make a shot or schematic in terms of getting a good shot to make or both? On the flip side talent or toughness to get a stop on the D end? Free throw shooting at the end of games? Turnovers? Rebounding?

Hmmmmmmmmm...what if it turned out that Izzo and Ryan, maybe a couple other teams, win a trunk load of close games while amazingly the rest of the Big Ten struggles, especially against the.............................erk! Gurggle, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......

.........................................................................................irk.

yoos didn' see nothin. foget about it.

 

[Lone Clone]

That figure could be seen in another context; how many of those close losses weren't expected to be close? That is, how often should the team/coach be credited with being in position to win as underdogs? The games in Ames this year and two years ago would certainly be examples of that; according to form, the Hawks weren't supposed to be in a position to blow a lead in the final minute. If you're going to bitch about that -- and I would, too -- you have to credit them with getting there.

 

[DanL53]

That figure could be seen in another context; how many of those close losses weren't expected to be close? That is, how often should the team/coach be credited with being in position to win as underdogs? The games in Ames this year and two years ago would certainly be examples of that; according to form, the Hawks weren't supposed to be in a position to blow a lead in the final minute. If you're going to bitch about that -- and I would, too -- you have to credit them with getting there.

Good thoughts. Very good thoughts. Thanks Lone Clone.

 

[cedarvalleykid14]

So we should be pleased that Iowa managed to lose to ISU by one point rather than fret about losing a 20-point lead in the second half and an 8-point lead with less than 2 minutes to go. Good points.

 

[Tacos123]

That figure could be seen in another context; how many of those close losses weren't expected to be close? That is, how often should the team/coach be credited with being in position to win as underdogs? The games in Ames this year and two years ago would certainly be examples of that; according to form, the Hawks weren't supposed to be in a position to blow a lead in the final minute. If you're going to bitch about that -- and I would, too -- you have to credit them with getting there.

Is bitching about blowing a lead not giving them credit for getting there?? That's why we're bitching....

 

[sloehawk]

That figure could be seen in another context; how many of those close losses weren't expected to be close? That is, how often should the team/coach be credited with being in position to win as underdogs? The games in Ames this year and two years ago would certainly be examples of that; according to form, the Hawks weren't supposed to be in a position to blow a lead in the final minute. If you're going to bitch about that -- and I would, too -- you have to credit them with getting there.

To me, that is immaterial. You got yourself in a position to win the game for a reason. Finish it. That applies to every team in the Nation.

 

[starbrown]

That figure could be seen in another context; how many of those close losses weren't expected to be close? That is, how often should the team/coach be credited with being in position to win as underdogs? The games in Ames this year and two years ago would certainly be examples of that; according to form, the Hawks weren't supposed to be in a position to blow a lead in the final minute. If you're going to bitch about that -- and I would, too -- you have to credit them with getting there.

This is the "moral victory" measuring stick. Hayden Fry correctly said he would punch anyone in the mouth who used it.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

I think you are making the case, at least in part, that the complaints about lacking clutch guard play are somewhat justified.
Teams which have weaknesses at point guard routinely have problems at the end of close games.

 

[paladinhawk]

This is the "moral victory" measuring stick. Hayden Fry correctly said he would punch anyone in the mouth who used it.

Especially considering this is a senior laden team. I was much less upset about the loss in Ames 2 years ago compared to this year's loss. Two years ago I thought ' they're a young team that will learn from this loss'. This year is more like 'Holy Jeebus haven't they learned anything about finishing games?!'

 

[DanL53]

Eleven Big Ten teams for the last five years. Wins and losses of five points or less or OT. By my count which could be off a bit.

Illinois: 16-11
Indiana: 16-16
Iowa: 9-20
Mich: 13-8
M St: 19-16
Minn: 11-25
North: 7-11
O St: 12-10
Penn St: 14-19
Purdue: 13-8
Wisc: 17-9

 

[RocknRollface]

The last 4 years the majority of the close loses could have/should have been won by Iowa with better free throw shooting and decision making.

That stretch also encompasses Devin Marbles 1-20 something on last shots to tie or win.

 

[hawkeyemark]

I think you are making the case, at least in part, that the complaints about lacking clutch guard play are somewhat justified.
Teams which have weaknesses at point guard routinely have problems at the end of close games.

Good way of looking at the point guard position another way other than just guards drive the game now. At the end of the day I like big men and strong play inside but as you say you close out the game with the point guard. Just like in football IMO you win with defense but strong leadership at quarterback pulls it all together (the exact words I wrote on the football board).

I've also written on this side that in looking at things objectively Fran gets higher marks when it comes to recruiting. I do think he has missed the boat at point guard where we needed to have somebody supplement Gessel and allow him to play a little different role aligned to his talent and what he can bring to the table. We didn't need all those wing players in this class resulting in two of them sitting out a year with redshirts.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

Good way of looking at the point guard position another way other than just guards drive the game now. At the end of the day I like big men and strong play inside but as you say you close out the game with the point guard. Just like in football IMO you win with defense but strong leadership at quarterback pulls it all together (the exact words I wrote on the football board).

I've also written on this side that in looking at things objectively Fran gets higher marks when it comes to recruiting. I do think he has missed the boat at point guard where we needed to have somebody supplement Gessel and allow him to play a little different role aligned to his talent and what he can bring to the table. We didn't need all those wing players in this class resulting in two of them sitting out a year with redshirts.

Agree that the recruiting was heavily weighted to wing players.
Which has left the team somewhat lacking in ball handlers. Especially at crunch time.
I hope Williams progresses to get some meaningful minutes this season.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

That figure could be seen in another context; how many of those close losses weren't expected to be close? That is, how often should the team/coach be credited with being in position to win as underdogs? The games in Ames this year and two years ago would certainly be examples of that; according to form, the Hawks weren't supposed to be in a position to blow a lead in the final minute. If you're going to bitch about that -- and I would, too -- you have to credit them with getting there.

Eh, not sure I agree. Do you give Fran credit for Uthoff shooting out of his mind in the first half, scoring 30 pts? He deserves some credit maybe but the coaching impact is much more important at the end of games with who to have on the court, what plays to call, the use of TO's, etc. Fran's coaching at the end of games has been abysmal. You'd think just by random chance you'd finish .500 in those games and as DanL showed with his numbers they are at god awful levels with their record in those games. We also can't ignore the fact Iowa has had a senior/junior heavy starting lineup the past 2 years. Experience should help you in close games. I'm scared to think how bad Iowa will do next season with a bunch of underclassmen starting.

So, ok, I'll give Fran some credit for having the team in position to win, but what does it matter if you can't finish off teams. Now, like KF who turned his terrible clock management skills into a plus this season, maybe Fran can improve his end of game coaching. Like Kirk did, it will take some major soul searching that what he was doing wasn't working and making changes. Hopefully Fran will follow this example. Maybe it means turning the end of game coaching over to one of the asst coaches.

 

[PhantomFlyer]

So we should be pleased that Iowa managed to lose to ISU by one point rather than fret about losing a 20-point lead in the second half and an 8-point lead with less than 2 minutes to go. Good points.

Nicely done. Exactly what I was thinking. What they are really saying is that you should enjoy the "moral victory". The bar is set so low with so many fans. Anything better than Lick is fine

 

[PhantomFlyer]

To me, that is immaterial. You got yourself in a position to win the game for a reason. Finish it. That applies to every team in the Nation.

Well coached teams do win those games. This is especially true when you have a starting lineup filled with juniors or seniors. No excuse to have such a crappy record of 14-31 in those games.

 

[EddieHaskell]

Eleven Big Ten teams for the last five years. Wins and losses of five points or less or OT. By my count which could be off a bit.

Illinois: 16-11
Indiana: 16-16
Iowa: 9-20
Mich: 13-8
M St: 19-16
Minn: 11-25
North: 7-11
O St: 12-10
Penn St: 14-19
Purdue: 13-8
Wisc: 17-9

Ouch.

 

[EZ2BJZ]

Statistics don't always tell the full story. Like, for example, how they lost those games down the stretch. When Gesell, Woodbury, etc. were freshmen/sophomores, losing games down the stretch were understandable (i.e at Iowa State 2013). Part of the maturation process is learning how to win close games.

Now that they are seniors they should be finishing these close games. The Iowa State game last week is a perfect illustration of this. I think most reasonably sane people expected #4 Iowa State's competitive pride, especially at home, to kick in and expected the Clones to go on a terror in the 2nd half. The issue isn't with Iowa State coming back to make the game close in the end. The issue is that being up 6 with a minute to go, no one on the Iowa team had enough poise to even 1) get the ball inbounded and 2) get the team in a position to get fouled and shoot free throws.

A lot of people are attributing this failure to coaching. While I think Fran should have used a timeout after the first inbounding gaffe, I'm not sure how much a coach can teach experienced seniors "poise" and "mental toughness" in crunch time. I think you have to put this loss on the players. Hopefully, Fran can figure out how to get a decent point guard on the team. Because until he is able to, I would expect the aforementioned statistics to continue trending that way.

 

[Ihawkhoops]

This thread sort of sums up Iowa basketball. Should we be glad we "hung in" against # 4 or should we be disappointed because we blew a 20 point lead? Did Fran do a great job in the first half when Uthoff went Jimmer and an awful job when he went cold in the second half? Are we potentially that good or is ISU overrated? Jennifer Aniston or Demi Moore? Sorry, dating myself here, but over 40 is my target demographic.

To me the ISU loss was more about fewer scoring options and a lack of shot creators. ISU had multiple guys who stepped up simply by taking us off the dribble or getting a rebound. After Uthoff and Jok, we don't have many viable options and that makes us easier to defend. This has been problematic since Fran has been here and I believe it is partly due to lacking quickness at the PG spot. Many of the close games referenced above were lost to teams with guards who broke us down, got to the paint and scored or kicked while we relied on deep / desperation 3's late in the shot clock, if we got shots.

 

[DanL53]

This thread sort of sums up Iowa basketball. Should we be glad we "hung in" against # 4 or should we be disappointed because we blew a 20 point lead? Did Fran do a great job in the first half when Uthoff went Jimmer and an awful job when he went cold in the second half? Are we potentially that good or is ISU overrated? Jennifer Aniston or Demi Moore? Sorry, dating myself here, but over 40 is my target demographic.

To me the ISU loss was more about fewer scoring options and a lack of shot creators. ISU had multiple guys who stepped up simply by taking us off the dribble or getting a rebound. After Uthoff and Jok, we don't have many viable options and that makes us easier to defend. This has been problematic since Fran has been here and I believe it is partly due to lacking quickness at the PG spot. Many of the close games referenced above were lost to teams with guards who broke us down, got to the paint and scored or kicked while we relied on deep / desperation 3's late in the shot clock, if we got shots.

I really like this post. It gets to the heart of our perceptual skills, doesn't it.

A point: If we lose so many close games, and 9-20 was just Big Ten games since McCaffery has been here. And if we haven't fixed much of the problem already, how in the world did we end up 9-9, 9-9 and 12-6 the last three years!?!? Wow, we must not get blown out very often? Isn't that a good thing?

So why doesn't anyone often talk about how competitive the program has been under McCaffery? Hasn't this all been a glass half full/half empty exercise?????

Why do we dwell on the negative? Holy High Heaven it seems to me we couldn't create more negative propaganda about ourselves if we hired Joseph Goebbels himself.

There are the numbers right in front of us. And to those who think I only talk about good stuff...I dug up those numbers!!! But isn't it kind of important to measure them against the bigger picture. ihawkhoops asks a great question, "Should we be glad we "hung in" against # 4 or should we be disappointed because we blew a 20 point lead?" In the end isn't the answer an obvious one? We lost, that's disappointing. And no matter what it takes, (short of cheating) we need to be glad more often than disappointed.

Are we? I am. The last three years we're right there with Dr. Tom and Lute Olson as far as our winning percentage in the Big Ten. I'm satisfied. But I want to see what the next five years bring.

 

[hawk-i bob]

actually I thought we would have been in more 5 pt games than 45 out of 181 for 25%. It is amazing how the ISU game has brought us full circle.

So out of the 31 losses 12 were against Top25 ranked teams...it would be interesting to know on those 12 losses whether Iowa had a substantial lead & blew it (IE ISU) ... or ... if it was a back & forth type game where we played well.. coming down to a call here or there, a shot that just didn't go in, free throws...or did we turn the ball over late in the game?

or a combination of both...remember this one:

The tide turned with 1:04 remaining when Spartan guard Keith Appling missed a 3-pointer and Michigan State secured the offensive rebound. Harris then drew a foul on his 3-pointer before making all three free throws to even the score at 56.
"You have got to get that rebound," said McCaffery. "We get that rebound, we win that game."
Iowa turned the ball over on its next possession when freshman Mike Gesell's pass near midcourt was picked off by Brandon Dawson, and the forward went coast-to-coast and slammed home a dunk to put the Spartans on top. On the ensuing possession, White made 1-of-2 free throws to cut the deficit to one before Appling followed with two makes to make the score 60-57 with 20 ticks left.
Freshman Anthony Clemmons then made his first free throw to make the score 60-58, but his second attempt was off the mark. Iowa secured the rebound when White tipped the ball to Clemmons, where he was fouled. He again made 1-of-2 attempts to trim the lead to 60-59, and Appling made two more free throws with nine seconds left to extend the lead to 62-59.
"I felt it come short the first time I missed and the second time," said Clemmons, a Lansing, Mich., native. "I knew it was coming off. I was hoping we got the rebound again, but unfortunately we didn't."
With the Spartans extending their defense, Iowa didn't get a good look at the tie, as Clemmons shot at the buzzer didn't draw iron.
"It was one of those games, and I am not sure anyone deserved to win or anyone deserved to lose," said Michigan State head coach Tom Izzo. "I feel fortunate to come out with a win."

 

[SDHawkDoc]

I'm OK with Dr. Tom type performance.

Iowa can get to the NCAA tourney again. Somewhere in the 7-11 range.

If you're expecting more, you will very likely be disappointed.

On a thread at the beginning of the year someone mentioned top ten. In the nation. And, I confirmed with them that they were not joking. That is ridiculous.

Finish anywhere from 4 through 7 in the conference. Make the NCAA tourney. Win a first round game. That's a good season for this program.

 

[starbrown]

The last three years we're right there with Dr. Tom and Lute Olson as far as our winning percentage in the Big Ten. I'm satisfied. But I want to see what the next five years bring.

You are not a friend to facts. And an embarrassment to fans who care about accuracy.

Last 3 yrs in conf.

FM:
9-9 6th place
9-9 6th place
12-6 3rd place

TD: a sweet 16 in that period
12-6 2nd place
9-7 5th place
9-7 3rd place

LO: a sweet 16 in that period
13-5 2nd place
12-6 2nd place
10-8 2nd place

I do applaud you tho for arguing against your own thread.

 

[Ihawkhoops]

I guess there is a part of me that wants to believe we are more relevant than we are. Illinois is in shambles, should be able to get some talent there. Missouri is in free fall...Cook is a solid get, can we get more? Indiana full of talented kids who fly under the radar. Northwestern and PSU with top 20 recruiting classes in the prior or upcoming years.

Maybe growing up watching BJ has ruined me for life with high expectations, but I am sort of over going after the kid from Hoosiers to play PG for us.

 

[srams21]

You are not a friend to facts. And an embarrassment to fans who care about accuracy.

Last 3 yrs in conf.

FM:
9-9 6th place
9-9 6th place
12-6 3rd place

TD: a sweet 16 in that period
12-6 2nd place
9-7 5th place
9-7 3rd place

LO: a sweet 16 in that period
13-5 2nd place
12-6 2nd place
10-8 2nd place

I do applaud you tho for arguing against your own thread.

He tends to only use quantifiable facts when they support his argument. This is the over the top aspect of his posting that I have referenced.

 

[DanL53]

You are not a friend to facts. And an embarrassment to fans who care about accuracy.

Last 3 yrs in conf.

FM:
9-9 6th place
9-9 6th place
12-6 3rd place

TD: a sweet 16 in that period
12-6 2nd place
9-7 5th place
9-7 3rd place

LO: a sweet 16 in that period
13-5 2nd place
12-6 2nd place
10-8 2nd place

I do applaud you tho for arguing against your own thread.

We're looking at it two different ways. (And sram, huddle in here because this for you as well. ) I'm talking about McCaffery's last three years being measurable to Dr. Tom and Lute Olson's overall winning percentage at Iowa.

If you don't think it is justifiable to measure is such a manner, fine. I am looking for progression here folks, growth in a program that needs it.

I've recently posted the exact same thing about what measures folks chose to use. We all tend to pick and choose to make our point, when in fact it is the overall record that actually means anything.

starbrown, you are pushing my patience a bit though with your smarta$$ comments and this "embarrassing" crud popping out in your posts. I've been respectful to you up to now. We should both want that to continue.

 

[srams21]

We're looking at it two different ways. (And sram, huddle in here because this for you as well. ) I'm talking about McCaffery's last three years being measurable to Dr. Tom and Lute Olson's overall winning percentage at Iowa.

If you don't think it is justifiable to measure is such a manner, fine. I am looking for progression here folks, growth in a program that needs it.

I've recently posted the exact same thing about what measures folks chose to use. We all tend to pick and choose to make our point, when in fact it is the overall record that actually means anything.

starbrown, you are pushing my patience a bit though with your smarta$$ comments and this "embarrassing" crud popping out in your posts. I've been respectful to you up to now. We should both want that to continue.

Fair enough. I like to compare apples to apples. If you are going to exclude Fran's first two years but not Lute's or Dr. Tom's how is that fair? As is, here are a couple snapshots: Listed below I have each coach's overall BIG TEN winning pct. including every year they coached:

Lute: 91-71 - (56%)
Dr. Tom 125-105 (54%)
Fran 42-48 (46%)

Fran is doing a good job overall and I hope those numbers continue to increase. I suspect the Hawks will be a game or two above .500 this year in BIG play but could be a game or two below next year with the graduation of several starters.

 

[Vbeachawk]

Dochterman in the podcast said/showed similar abysmal stats over the past 2 seasons (2-14 in the final minute or less in games that were that were close......listen to podcast for exact specifics). Any way you cut it, Iowa's record at the end of close games has been terrible for years with upper class players. Danl's stats were for a longer time period and this season the Hawks are at a minimum 0-3 in games decided by 5 points or less, which is more of the same.

 

[DanL53]

Fair enough. I like to compare apples to apples. If you are going to exclude Fran's first two years but not Lute's or Dr. Tom's how is that fair? As is, here are a couple snapshots: Listed below I have each coach's overall BIG TEN winning pct. including every year they coached:

Lute: 91-71 - (56%)
Dr. Tom 125-105 (54%)
Fran 42-48 (46%)

Fran is doing a good job overall and I hope those numbers continue to increase. I suspect the Hawks will be a game or two above .500 this year in BIG play but could be a game or two below next year with the graduation of several starters.

I'm sure glad you are willing to be patient with McCaffery. Drop just his first year and he is at 38-34 and .528. I'm looking at the apples you are comparing and not getting the point. Olson's came admittedly after four poor years of Dick Shultz, but also within ten years of two Big Ten Championships and Iowa enjoyed just a bit more winning tradition, wouldn't you say? Dr. Tom's apples? Not worth event trying to compare.

What makes your method sound?

 

[DanL53]

Dochterman in the podcast said/showed similar abysmal stats over the past 2 seasons (2-14 in the final minute or less in games that were that were close......listen to podcast for exact specifics). Any way you cut it, Iowa's record at the end of close games has been terrible for years with upper class players. Danl's stats were for a longer time period and this season the Hawks are at a minimum 0-3 in games decided by 5 points or less, which is more of the same.

We are!?!?!?

http://www.hawkeyesports.com/sports/m-baskbl/sched/iowa-m-baskbl-sched.html

Looks like 1-2 to me. We lost by six to Notre Dame and I know we aren't dumb enough to count Exhibition games. I don't get why we forget about the FSU game.

 

[EZ2BJZ]

This thread sort of sums up Iowa basketball. Should we be glad we "hung in" against # 4 or should we be disappointed because we blew a 20 point lead? Did Fran do a great job in the first half when Uthoff went Jimmer and an awful job when he went cold in the second half? Are we potentially that good or is ISU overrated? Jennifer Aniston or Demi Moore? Sorry, dating myself here, but over 40 is my target demographic.

To me the ISU loss was more about fewer scoring options and a lack of shot creators. ISU had multiple guys who stepped up simply by taking us off the dribble or getting a rebound. After Uthoff and Jok, we don't have many viable options and that makes us easier to defend. This has been problematic since Fran has been here and I believe it is partly due to lacking quickness at the PG spot. Many of the close games referenced above were lost to teams with guards who broke us down, got to the paint and scored or kicked while we relied on deep / desperation 3's late in the shot clock, if we got shots.

Excellent analysis!

 

[srams21]

I'm sure glad you are willing to be patient with McCaffery. Drop just his first year and he is at 38-34 and .528. I'm looking at the apples you are comparing and not getting the point. Olson's came admittedly after four poor years of Dick Shultz, but also within ten years of two Big Ten Championships and Iowa enjoyed just a bit more winning tradition, wouldn't you say? Dr. Tom's apples? Not worth event trying to compare.

What makes your method sound?

My method is sound because is it looking at the entire picture. Do you know what apples to apples means? If you want to throw out Fran's first year(his worst) how about we also throw out Dr. Tom's worst year or Lute's worst year? You are simply cherry-picking based on what would give you the best stats. By including every game each one coached in conference there is no bias. The stats are what they are.

Fran is doing a solid job, but his overall stats just do not match those of Lute or Dr. Tom.If I leave out certain years because it helps my cause, that is not an accurate representation of the situation. It's not worth anymore of my time trying to explain statistics to you.

If you want to say Fran walked into a tougher situation than those two did, that is an objective statement. One that I am also willing to agree with on some level.

If you want to say, let's take away Fran's first two years (or any year good or bad) from his stats and then compare a portion of Fran's tenure to the entirety of Lute's or Tom's tenure, then that would be a misrepresentation of statistics.

 

[DanL53]

My method is sound because is it looking at the entire picture. Do you know what apples to apples means? If you want to throw out Fran's first year(his worst) how about we also throw out Dr. Tom's worst year or Lute's worst year? You are simply cherry-picking based on what would give you the best stats. By including every game each one coached in conference there is no bias. The stats are what they are.

Fran is doing a solid job, but his overall stats just do not match those of Lute or Dr. Tom.If I leave out certain years because it helps my cause, that is not an accurate representation of the situation. It's not worth anymore of my time trying to explain statistics to you.

If you want to say Fran walked into a tougher situation than those two did, that is an objective statement. One that I am also willing to agree with on some level.

If you want to say, let's take away Fran's first two years (or any year good or bad) from his stats and then compare a portion of Fran's tenure to the entirety of Lute's or Tom's tenure, then that would be a misrepresentation of statistics.

Apples to apples, cherry picking. Is this an fruit orchard or a discussion about basketball! Check out the part in bold. Bingo!!!!!

 

[EZ2BJZ]

I really like this post. It gets to the heart of our perceptual skills, doesn't it.

A point: If we lose so many close games, and 9-20 was just Big Ten games since McCaffery has been here. And if we haven't fixed much of the problem already, how in the world did we end up 9-9, 9-9 and 12-6 the last three years!?!? Wow, we must not get blown out very often? Isn't that a good thing?

So why doesn't anyone often talk about how competitive the program has been under McCaffery? Hasn't this all been a glass half full/half empty exercise?????

Why do we dwell on the negative? Holy High Heaven it seems to me we couldn't create more negative propaganda about ourselves if we hired Joseph Goebbels himself.

There are the numbers right in front of us. And to those who think I only talk about good stuff...I dug up those numbers!!! But isn't it kind of important to measure them against the bigger picture. ihawkhoops asks a great question, "Should we be glad we "hung in" against # 4 or should we be disappointed because we blew a 20 point lead?" In the end isn't the answer an obvious one? We lost, that's disappointing. And no matter what it takes, (short of cheating) we need to be glad more often than disappointed.

Are we? I am. The last three years we're right there with Dr. Tom and Lute Olson as far as our winning percentage in the Big Ten. I'm satisfied. But I want to see what the next five years bring.

I agree whole-heartedly. People often forget just how far into the cellar Lickliter took the Iowa basketball program. Fran has done an amazing job, IMO, of making this team competitive again. I like the recruits Fran got in this last class and think the players he will be bringing in for future classes will continue to upgrade the talent.

I could be wrong, but I think a lot of the unrest from Iowa fans (regarding Fran), whether conscious or subconsciously, has to do with the basketball program 30 miles north of Des Moines that has enjoyed a few seasons of modest prosperity thanks to Fred "The Mayor" Hoiberg. Hoiberg deserves a lot of praise. He took a pretty big risk in some cases taking in castaway players with loads of talent but a lot of baggage and managed those situations very well. I think Fran has been unfairly scrutinized by comparisons to what Hoiberg was able to accomplish, and again, I think that has generated a lot of the unrest. Especially with Iowa losing 3 in a row now to ISU.

With that said, I would encourage fellow Hawkeye fans with a few thoughts (and these are more for entertainment purposes then for raising any substantive points or arguments about who is "better" right now) :

1. Hoiberg is gone. And after this season, the bulk of the talent at Iowa State will be too.
2. Iowa made it out of the first round of the NCAA tournament last season. Iowa State did not.
3. Hoiberg won as many regular season conference titles in the Big XII as Lickliter did in the Big Ten. Zero.
4. Hoiberg won 2 conference tournament championships. The same number as Steve Alford.
5. The farthest Hoiberg took Iowa State in the NCAA tournament his entire tenure was the Sweet 16. Tom Davis managed to do that in his lame duck year.

 

[SDHawkDoc]

As noted from more than one source, Iowa is worse at the end of close games than many other programs. In this case that matches the gut feeling that most of us have. It's one of the reasons why it wasn't at all surprising they lost in the end at ames last week.
Above .500 in those situations is my expectation. They've got a long way to go before they get there.

 

[srams21]

Apples to apples, cherry picking. Is this an fruit orchard or a discussion about basketball! Check out the part in bold. Bingo!!!!!

That's fine but making a statistical statement is quantifiable. When you pick and choose the years to compare for one coach (Fran) but take the whole picture for the others, that is just not a comparable statement.

How about we leave out last year for Fran? In that case, Fran is only 30-42 in the BIG as head coach. See how I painted a different picture?

Comparative analysis involves using the same period of time or duration of time to compare two or more different things? If you want the use the entire career at Iowa of one coach, you need to do the same for the others.