I have to give Fran credit as it seems he has found the groove with this team after trying different positions/minutes. I am hoping he can keep them playing well and keep it going for a March run.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
We've won 11 of our last 13, including the effing B10 tourney...and you're giving him credit for one game? How effing generous of you!FM has frustrated me with his player rotations all year, but today I thought he did a great job.
They played 35 games. And yes, they won 11 of the last 13, but that does not mean his player rotation was great as well. My opinion and I really do not give a rat's *** what you think.We've won 11 of our last 13, including the effing B10 tourney...and you're giving him credit for one game? How effing generous of you!
I'd guessing you've never coached at any level that matters. You appear to know squat about the challenges that come with coaching.They played 35 games. And yes, they won 11 of the last 13, but that does not mean his player rotation was great as well. My opinion and I really do not give a rat's *** what you think.
It's not the most attractive, but it's far above average as well.He's stayed the course and rebuilt the program from the dumpster fire he inherited. Iowa isn't the most attractive place to entice recruits to, so we have to win with the Iowa kids at the core. It worked this year with the most fun team to watch in the country...
What are you angry about Hooper56? Take a moment and examine how that label is defined. It's not winning % (which would truly be the "winningest" coach) it's total wins...basically a longevity award. Using those kind of metrics Fran is also the "all time losingest coach" as he has more losses than any other coach at Iowa."all time winningest coach"....another sports stat which is wildly misleading and complete bullshit.
Nobody is diminishing anything. Those are readily available career numbers. (see link) Your use of the term "dredged up" is pretty transparent. Nice not-so-subtle try at discrediting accurate data.When you have to dredge up coaches that won games that you would hardly recognize compared to today's basketball, you are really reaching to diminish McCaffery's accomplishments here. Ed Rule?!? He coached at the beginning of the LAST century!
As you point out, many coached few games. Ed Rule was 37-15 over three non consecutive seasons. Hardly a body of work that would put him at the top of the coaching mountain.Ed Rule .696 - coached the year after dribbling was allowed (1901), coached against James Naismith. Really???
Bucky O'Conner .659 - The onlysomewhat "modern" coach in this group and his last game was in 1958🤪
John Griffith .644 - coached the 3 seasons after Ed Rule's rule 😉. Last season was 1910.
Pops Harrison .700 - coached until 1950, played an average of 15 games/year - LOL!
None of these coaches are relevant.
Yes, and...?Ed Rule .696 - coached the year after dribbling was allowed (1901), coached against James Naismith. Really???
Bucky O'Conner .659 - The onlysomewhat "modern" coach in this group and his last game was in 1958🤪
John Griffith .644 - coached the 3 seasons after Ed Rule's rule 😉. Last season was 1910.
Pops Harrison .700 - coached until 1950, played an average of 15 games/year - LOL!
None of these coaches are relevant.
Winningest can also mean most wins.Yes, and...?
The numbers are still the numbers. Fran isn't close to being the "winningest" coach in Iowa basketball history. There are several above him which he will not pass.
If you Google “winningest college basketball coach” you’ll see that it is strictly by wins, not winning percentage. Yes, most of the coaches also have a high winning percentage but that’s not how they’re ranked.Winningest can also mean most wins.
Tell that to Bonzo the clown.If you Google “winningest college basketball coach” you’ll see that it is strictly by wins, not winning percentage. Yes, most of the coaches also have a high winning percentage but that’s not they’re ranked.
Yes..but if that's the definition you choose, then by extension the "losingest coach" would also be the one with the most losses. You can't just ignore the loss column.Winningest can also mean most wins.
If all you have is insults...you've clearly lost the argument.
LOL.Yes..but if that's the definition you choose, then by extension the "losingest coach" would also be the one with the most losses. You can't just ignore the loss column.
If all you have is insults...you've clearly lost the argument.
If you don't grasp the conceptual difference between raw numbers and percentages...I can't help you. Laughter may be your best option. Have a nice day.LOL.
Ignore the ignorant.If you don't grasp the conceptual difference between raw numbers and percentages...I can't help you. Laughter may be your best option. Have a nice day.
Stop confusing Bonzo with facts.If you Google “winningest college basketball coach” you’ll see that it is strictly by wins, not winning percentage. Yes, most of the coaches also have a high winning percentage but that’s not how they’re ranked.
Yup. No one said he has the best winning percentage nor that he's the best coach. Just the coach with the most wins, a.k.a. the winningest coach.Stop confusing Bonzo with facts.