ADVERTISEMENT

Its been 28 years since we have had this much B1G conference success

Franisdaman

HB King
Nov 3, 2012
101,071
138,055
113
Heaven, Iowa
Last edited:
Let's hope we finally get a break in how we are scheduled next year...we're gonna need it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: And1Hawk
Only now we more teams in the Big!

Agreed. Also, I just think its important to keep things in perspective. 6 years ago Fran inherited a cratered program and now we are about to make our 3rd consecutive trip to the NCAA Tournament (would have been 4 straight if not for Teddy V vs MSU in the 2013 BTT)

When you look at the traditional powers (IU, MSU, MD, Ohio State, Purdue, and Wisc), its saying a lot when you finish at least 3rd TWO YEARS IN A ROW for the first time in 28 years. That was a generation ago!!
 
Fran's success while at Iowa is even more amazing when you consider how frustrating many seasons have been. He's now had two teams that I believe should have been top 10 teams, but unfortunately lost virtually every close game they were in. Four years ago I believe we had a top 25 team that missed the NCAA tournament because they lost so many close games.

I have been extremely impressed with Fran's ability to coach, develop, and produce very good teams. The only thing left to do is to win some close games. Sometimes this involves catching a few breaks, and sometimes it involves reevaluating late game strategy (e.g., perhaps using more timeouts).

While it has been frustrating to see a lot of teams fall short of their potential, I am very happy with what Fran has done at Iowa. He has made Iowa a Big 10 Championship contender again.
 
Fran's success while at Iowa is even more amazing when you consider how frustrating many seasons have been. He's now had two teams that I believe should have been top 10 teams, but unfortunately lost virtually every close game they were in. Four years ago I believe we had a top 25 team that missed the NCAA tournament because they lost so many close games.

I have been extremely impressed with Fran's ability to coach, develop, and produce very good teams. The only thing left to do is to win some close games. Sometimes this involves catching a few breaks, and sometimes it involves reevaluating late game strategy (e.g., perhaps using more timeouts).

While it has been frustrating to see a lot of teams fall short of their potential, I am very happy with what Fran has done at Iowa. He has made Iowa a Big 10 Championship contender again.

Weird stance, Frans teams are top ten, yet lose to drop them out of top ten?

Maybe the AP vote should just be you.
 
Weird stance, Frans teams are top ten, yet lose to drop them out of top ten?

Maybe the AP vote should just be you.

I'm not saying the AP voters should have voted them to be in the top 10.

Fran has had two teams that were top 10-caliber, and unless this year's team turns it around quickly, neither team will have fully lived up to their potential. Similar to the 2010 football season.
 
I'm not saying the AP voters should have voted them to be in the top 10.

Fran has had two teams that were top 10-caliber, and unless this year's team turns it around quickly, neither team will have fully lived up to their potential. Similar to the 2010 football season.

That's my point. You've decided they were "top ten" caliber, more than once, in direct opposition to the statistics and evidence.

That's why I think it is a weird stance; you decide their potential prior to all the evidence then you believe them a failure once that actual evidence comes in.

Seems to me that these teams were objectovely not top ten. Did they look like it in some games? Sure, I guessed could always just extrapolate from big wins.
 
Also, this was a team whose preseason "potential" was barely in the top 25 by its own fans, certainly not Bog Ten contending. When did you change their potential? Obviously after going 9-1, which just ignores the remainder of the evidence.
 
What is unique about basketball is that you can have a so-so year, finish in the middle of the conference, not do well in the BTT, but win two games in the Dance and all is forgotten. Football, you are an also ran with two losses.

Nothing garners national attention like a run in March. Iowa had a nice win against Davidson, but got handled by a quality Gonzaga team. I don't care too much about the BTT, but two wins in the Tourney would be huge IMO.
 
When you look at the big picture, Fran has done a great job of making Iowa basketball relevant again. Three straight all-B1G first-team players shows that Fran and the other coaches can develop players. The lack of off-court issues of any kind shows that Fran has success without compromising the integrity of the program. The next step is to get a few top recruits to go with the quality guys who develop into top players after a couple of years. To be an elite team, you need guys who can make plays when the game is on the line, in addition to guys who consistently perform a pretty high level throughout the game. Consistently finishing in the top third of a very strong conference is very impressive, and only a disappointment because we haven't had a post-season run in the dance. Maybe it can still happen this year???
 
  • Like
Reactions: Suterman
As every single year, it is all about the tourney run. See Tom Izzo, or Bo the last few. Hell, see Kansas or Kentucky, at the end of every year it is tourney wins.

Can't wait to see a few this year.
 
I think the "close losses" slam is a bit of a canard. There have been many games during the McCaffery era that were close with three minutes or less left, that we went on to win by more than 5 (or whatever the current standard is) so they don't count as "close wins."
I think you are right. When you read some of the threads criticizing the coaches and some of the players, you would think that Iowa has been 6-12, instead of 12-6 the past couple of years. Latest Michigan game is a good example, but since we won be 10, it doesn't qualify...
 
I think the "close losses" slam is a bit of a canard. There have been many games during the McCaffery era that were close with three minutes or less left, that we went on to win by more than 5 (or whatever the current standard is) so they don't count as "close wins."

Also like whipping MSU twice, or beating on Purdue, or Michigan as posted above.

Certainly, anecdotally, it feels like Iowa struggles in close end-of-games, but I'm not sure that is quite accurate. That Indiana game shouldn't have been that close at the end, certainly not for a chance at OT on the last shot. They clawed back in to that one. I think it is more a symptom of the problem than the problem itself. When Iowa isn't flowing offensively they sure look like they struggle to score and it makes end of games look even worse. Contrast that with the games where the flow is flowing, like MSU/Purdue, and it looks nigh unstoppable. The symptom is overall play, not the end of game.

Obviously this can be greatly exacerbated by the coach's refusal to call timeouts which is extremely frustrating when it doesn't work. Again, I think a symptom, not the problem. The timeout not needed when flowing, but flowing not working. Which the coach should recognize and possibly correct, no doubt.
 
That's my point. You've decided they were "top ten" caliber, more than once, in direct opposition to the statistics and evidence.

That's why I think it is a weird stance; you decide their potential prior to all the evidence then you believe them a failure once that actual evidence comes in.

Seems to me that these teams were objectovely not top ten. Did they look like it in some games? Sure, I guessed could always just extrapolate from big wins.

Direct opposition to the statistics and evidence? This year's team and the 2013/2014 team were in the KenPom top 10 in the second week of February. In other words, they had proven to be top 10-caliber for over half a season. Moreover, both the 2013/2014 team and this year's team ranked in the bottom 15 in KenPom's "Luck" ranking, which is another way of saying that both teams lost a lot of games that, statistically, they should not have.

If your point is that neither team was top 10-caliber because neither ended up in the top 10 at the end of the season, then your point is a non-sequitur. If this view were followed to its logical conclusion, it would be impossible to ever say a team had a disappointing season because the discussion would revert back to the conclusion that such team finished exactly where the "actual" evidence (i.e., final win/loss record) says they should have.

The fact is that this team has played in 9 games in which there have been lead changes in the last 10 minutes. These games are essentially statistical toss ups and one would expect a team to win 50% of such games. Iowa, however, has lost 8 of 9. If they had managed to win just 4 of these games (i.e., still less than half), their record would currently be 24-6 and they would easily be in the top 10.
 
Direct opposition to the statistics and evidence? This year's team and the 2013/2014 team were in the KenPom top 10 in the second week of February. In other words, they had proven to be top 10-caliber for over half a season. Moreover, both the 2013/2014 team and this year's team ranked in the bottom 15 in KenPom's "Luck" ranking, which is another way of saying that both teams lost a lot of games that, statistically, they should not have.

If your point is that neither team was top 10-caliber because neither ended up in the top 10 at the end of the season, then your point is a non-sequitur. If this view were followed to its logical conclusion, it would be impossible to ever say a team had a disappointing season because the discussion would revert back to the conclusion that such team finished exactly where the "actual" evidence (i.e., final win/loss record) says they should have.

The fact is that this team has played in 9 games in which there have been lead changes in the last 10 minutes. These games are essentially statistical toss ups and one would expect a team to win 50% of such games. Iowa, however, has lost 8 of 9. If they had managed to win just 4 of these games (i.e., still less than half), their record would currently be 24-6 and they would easily be in the top 10.

I like that using all available evidence = non sequitur. I love HR. And exactly as I posted you decided to use Iowa's great run to show what their potential should be, while ignoring their bad run simultaneously. Fandom.
 
I like that using all available evidence = non sequitur. I love HR. And exactly as I posted you decided to use Iowa's great run to show what their potential should be, while ignoring their bad run simultaneously. Fandom.

(1) Iowa has lost 8 of 9 games in which there were lead changes in the last 10 minutes. Do you believe that is normal? To me, that is a clear illustration of a season with many missed opportunities.

(2) Using your own criteria, can you name any team that has ever had a disappointing season? The reason your point is a non-sequitur, unless I'm misunderstanding it, is that it is presupposes unknown facts to apply hindsight to a discussion of whether one could have predicted a specific outcome in a past moment in time. For example, if one were to say that the loss to Iowa State this year was disappointing because we played so well in the first half and blew a late lead, it would be a non-sequitur to say "You can't be disappointed in losing because Iowa State scored more points." The result (e.g., losing the game/finishing outside the top 10) is what is disappointing, and stating that you can't be disappointed in the result because that was the result is nonsensical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: starbrown
(1) Iowa has lost 8 of 9 games in which there were lead changes in the last 10 minutes. Do you believe that is normal? To me, that is a clear illustration of a season with many missed opportunities.

(2) Using your own criteria, can you name any team that has ever had a disappointing season? The reason your point is a non-sequitur, unless I'm misunderstanding it, is that it is presupposes unknown facts to apply hindsight to a discussion of whether one could have predicted a specific outcome in a past moment in time. For example, if one were to say that the loss to Iowa State this year was disappointing because we played so well in the first half and blew a late lead, it would be a non-sequitur to say "You can't be disappointed in losing because Iowa State scored more points." The result (e.g., losing the game/finishing outside the top 10) is what is disappointing, and stating that you can't be disappointed in the result because that was the result is nonsensical.

No, of course they can have a disappointing season. YOU are talking about a season where no fan, including Iowa's, were predicting even the success they DID, in fact, have. Then when they got top 10 (3), you grabbed that to make that the "potential", and then you ignored the rest.

You said that Iowa was top ten in February, therefore they were top ten that long, but no they were not. They weren't even top 25 for most of the non-con.

I loved the run in the Big Ten, it was fun and they looked dominant. I'm sorry you have made yourself disappointed by expecting that run to last the rest of the year.
 
No, of course they can have a disappointing season. YOU are talking about a season where no fan, including Iowa's, were predicting even the success they DID, in fact, have. Then when they got top 10 (3), you grabbed that to make that the "potential", and then you ignored the rest.

You said that Iowa was top ten in February, therefore they were top ten that long, but no they were not. They weren't even top 25 for most of the non-con.

I loved the run in the Big Ten, it was fun and they looked dominant. I'm sorry you have made yourself disappointed by expecting that run to last the rest of the year.

I agree that preseason expectations were not high, especially after losing to Augustana in an exhibition game. However, that virtually nothing to do with the fact that it is disappointing that Iowa has fell short in almost every close game they have played this year.

Expectations are not static. Over the course of this season, this team has shown that they are capable of special accomplishments. Uthoff and Jok grew from good players to great players. Woodbury turned into a rebounding machine. Gesell has a great assist/turnover ratio. Clemmons has had, by far, the best year of his collegiate career. In summary, this team has played great this year.

However, they have unfortunately lost almost every close game in which they've been involved. That is the reason they rank 337 out of 351 in "Luck" according to KenPom. Whether or not you believe losing close games is a matter of luck or if it reflects a skill that is yet to be statistically quantifiable, it is disappointing nevertheless.

It makes little sense to say that because Iowa did not have high preseason expectations, its fans should not be frustrated and/or disappointed in losing so many close games. This team was capable of much more than the 5th seed in the Big 10 tournament.
 
Tom Davis did it . . . uhhhhhhh, what happened to him? How come I have this feeling that those who love him now also wanted Dr. Tom gone?
Not quite the same. David did it his first two years with Ravelings recruits. Then nothing for 12 years.
 
I agree that preseason expectations were not high, especially after losing to Augustana in an exhibition game. However, that virtually nothing to do with the fact that it is disappointing that Iowa has fell short in almost every close game they have played this year.

Expectations are not static. Over the course of this season, this team has shown that they are capable of special accomplishments. Uthoff and Jok grew from good players to great players. Woodbury turned into a rebounding machine. Gesell has a great assist/turnover ratio. Clemmons has had, by far, the best year of his collegiate career. In summary, this team has played great this year.

However, they have unfortunately lost almost every close game in which they've been involved. That is the reason they rank 337 out of 351 in "Luck" according to KenPom. Whether or not you believe losing close games is a matter of luck or if it reflects a skill that is yet to be statistically quantifiable, it is disappointing nevertheless.

It makes little sense to say that because Iowa did not have high preseason expectations, its fans should not be frustrated and/or disappointed in losing so many close games. This team was capable of much more than the 5th seed in the Big 10 tournament.

You are correct in the part I bolded. They have however also shown that if they aren't playing very well, much as every other top half team in the B1G, they are also capable of losing to teams you feel are inferior. Actually, while I know timing is everything, show me a top 25 team this year that hasn't gone through that at some level.
 
Iowa had stark contrasts in their season. While I can't say more so than all other teams, I don't know of one with such dramatic swings in fortune. January ascendancy to February collapse.
Taken as a whole, they have slightly exceeded the expectations I had prior to seasons start.
Whoever said "You are what your record says you are" had it right.
Hawks still have a chance to improve that. While a BTT run to the title game would be good, what I'm really looking for is 2 wins in the NCAA tourney.
 
That was my point that you have been arguing against. You are stuck (static) on one part of a long season, in order to disappoint yourself.

Your point remains nonsensical. I said expectations are not static in response to your argument that Iowa fans cannot be disappointed because preseason expectations are low. My principal observation in my original post was that it has been frustrating to see Iowa lose so many close games while Fran has been here. You have still yet to address why it is a "weird stance" to express disappointment that this team has lost virtually every close game this year.

I'll try asking a simple question again: Iowa has lost 8 of 9 games in which there were lead changes in the last 10 minutes - do you believe that is normal?

The simple answer to that simple question is no - it is not normal to lose nearly 90% of the close games in which you play. I trust you are smart enough to connect the dots on how this leads to a feeling of disappointment and frustration.
 
I agree that preseason expectations were not high, especially after losing to Augustana in an exhibition game. However, that virtually nothing to do with the fact that it is disappointing that Iowa has fell short in almost every close game they have played this year.

Expectations are not static. Over the course of this season, this team has shown that they are capable of special accomplishments. Uthoff and Jok grew from good players to great players. Woodbury turned into a rebounding machine. Gesell has a great assist/turnover ratio. Clemmons has had, by far, the best year of his collegiate career. In summary, this team has played great this year.

However, they have unfortunately lost almost every close game in which they've been involved. That is the reason they rank 337 out of 351 in "Luck" according to KenPom. Whether or not you believe losing close games is a matter of luck or if it reflects a skill that is yet to be statistically quantifiable, it is disappointing nevertheless.

It makes little sense to say that because Iowa did not have high preseason expectations, its fans should not be frustrated and/or disappointed in losing so many close games. This team was capable of much more than the 5th seed in the Big 10 tournament.

Don't bother. theIowaHawk lost this argument the moment it started.
 
You are correct in the part I bolded. They have however also shown that if they aren't playing very well, much as every other top half team in the B1G, they are also capable of losing to teams you feel are inferior. Actually, while I know timing is everything, show me a top 25 team this year that hasn't gone through that at some level.

Agreed, they are definitely vulnerable when they do not play well. With that said, they are one of only 5 teams in the country that have not lost a single game by double digits. Thus, even when they play poorly, they have still had a good chance of winning every game they've played this season.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT