Iowa showed they were the better team because they gave up 48 points in the second half and lost to Iowa State? Also I'm OK with ISU get exposed early in the season and having time to try to figure it out. Next year and so on will work itself out. I think ISU is set up fine but 2017 is a big class for Prohm
Iowa #16, ISU #17 in Updated AP Rankings
- Thread starter hawks127
- Start date
Iowa showed they were the better team because they gave up 48 points in the second half and lost to Iowa State? Also I'm OK with ISU get exposed early in the season and having time to try to figure it out. Next year and so on will work itself out. I think ISU is set up fine but 2017 is a big class for Prohm
I've seen Monte as a late 2nd rounder in some 2017 drafts (see nbadraft.net.). I have not seen him in any 2016 mock drafts, so I am assuming he's staying (unless that changes).
Assuming that, the known's for next year are Matt Thomas, Naz Long, and Monte Morris. Pretty solid core of seniors with tons of experience.
Throw in Burton, who has shown flashes of brilliance (against OU and UNI), and Malou, who seems like a freak and had KU and Arizona offers, and I'm feeling pretty good about next year. Hopefully one of the other 4-5 new guys or redshirts steps up and surprises to add some depth.
ISU doesn't go on a run like that if the game isn't played at Hilton. Iowa gave them the game, ISU didn't 'win' it. Also, prior to and since that game Iowa has beaten 2 ranked teams, ISU has beaten zero.
Not sure next year will work itself out and by 2017 things could be a mess. The further ISU is removed from the Hoiberg era the more the program is going to resemble the McDermott era.
Can't recruit top talent, get leftovers from the state, can't take advantage of transfers like years' past, can't sell them on Hoiberg and NBA connections. Prom has only had success in a mid major conference where every coach before him has also had success (similar to your Matt Campbell hire).
Yes next year is always the year for isu. Once the newest saviors are on board and performing how clown fans think they should that is.
Just like isu was going to win at least 6 football games each of the last 3 years.
Lucy will pull the ball away from clown fans and they will be laughed at once again. It happens so often isu fans should expect it. As predictable as the sun rising in the east.
If that's your theory how can you say Iowa showed they are better than ISU if they give away a big game like that? Iowa is a good team, ISU is a good team, I really don't know who is better now to be honest with you. Plenty of season left and it's fun having that both big in state schools are competitive otherwise there wouldn't be much to discuss!
I admittedly check out mock drafts too but they're complete garbage. Kane and Ejim were both projected on there while White and Marble weren't. Also Uthoff still isn't on there and he's absolutely going to be drafted.
Thomas and Naz are both decent players, more 4th and 5th options. Monte has never been the first option on any team he's played on, he's passive and won't be surrounded by the talent next year. There's a reason he was left off last summer's FIBA games.
Burton has averaged 1.5 PPG over the last two games, he's 6'4 and asked to play the 4. Malou looks very talented but his offers are questionable. I believe he's 23 now playing against 18 year olds and averages 14 PPG playing JUCO. Considering the age gap and JUCO talent, that's not very impressive. There are also concerns over his eligibility.
It's not just my theory. Niang said Iowa gave gave them the win in the postgame interviews.
True, but doesn't that discredit Iowa some? When a team gives away a game I don't think that shows they were the better team.
Nope it doesn't discredit Iowa at all. More a statement that isu wasn't good enough to beat Iowa on their own and that they needed Iowa's help to do it.
I didn't have a problem with Iowa losing after they totally let it drip down their leg. Maybe it will teach Fran to use timeouts or toughen players up but Iowa had the game won. ISU was trying to foul and send them to the line to extend but somehow Iowa just wasn't in the bonus yet. It's not as though the team that wins is always deserving.
Considering Iowa outplayed ISU the majority of the game at Hilton, have more quality wins that ISU and no bad losses (ISU does) I'd be inclined to say Iowa is better. The AP voters would tend to agree with me.
Nope, polls only count when isu fan says so. Right now they don't count. If and when isu is above Iowa that is the only time they will count and can be talked about. Don't you even dare to bring up Ken Pom or Sagarin. Clone fans will lose it.
So you could say Iowa wasn't good enough to beat ISU on their own since they gave the game away
What is your point here?
Do not forget the loss to UAB last March. Using your 'logic' either isu was not good enough because it has been heard/read over and over again how isu gave that game away.
Time to move on from this.
And the reason Isu was able to get to 48 was because Iowa couldn't inbound the ball. Twice. If they inbound the ball they give up 3-5 less points and win.
They couldn't inbound the ball in large part because of the stupidest possible strategy of having everyone in the same area allowing no room for any one to get free. I think Greg Davis might have drawn that inbounds play up.
I'd have to say, if you are basing it solely on the head-to-head match up in December, neither team proved they were the "better team" per se. Regardless, Iowa State won and that's really all that matters. Whether Iowa "lost it" or Iowa State "won it" is irrelevant to that fact. The truth ironically is that both statements are accurate. Iowa became mental midgets the last minute of that game and Iowa State made two critical shots and two critical free throws to win. And, as someone astutely pointed out, Iowa gave up a lot of points in that 2nd half.
Regardless of "who won it" or "lost it" none of that is going to mean anything come March. Did it matter that Northwestern was the "better" team Week 1 against Stanford? I personally would have rather lost at Northwestern and won the Rose Bowl, but that's just me. Both Iowa and Iowa State still have a lot to prove at this early point in the conference season.
Regardless of "who won it" or "lost it" none of that is going to mean anything come March. Did it matter that Northwestern was the "better" team Week 1 against Stanford? I personally would have rather lost at Northwestern and won the Rose Bowl, but that's just me. Both Iowa and Iowa State still have a lot to prove at this early point in the conference season.
I predict ISU does not make it to the sweet 16. Iowa might not either, but we have a better shot at it than they do.
A lot depends on where and what you're seeded. Plus, anything can happen come March. There will always be one or two early round upsets that paves the way for a relatively easy path to the Sweet 16 for some team (see last year's UCLA Bruins).
Odd you would bring that up when you consider that there are a ton of Clowns who still think ISU is a better team than Oklahoma and you gave up 60 points in a half to them. And you did it on your supposedly magical home court!
Oklahoma is better than Iowa State, I don't know anyone that would say differently. ISU did play well against them though and had a good look at a potential game winner
Well I do. Your defense wasn't as heavy of an influence in the comeback as your fanbase thinks.
I would credit our offense more than anything. 48 points in a half with no fouling at the end to extend the game is pretty impressive
Nope, it wasn't your offense either. Let's see if you get any warmer with the next post. And yes, there's a correct answer here. I'll even give you a hint- "the door swings both ways"...
Similar threads
