So which is it?
- Thread starter AuroraHawk
- Start date
It didn't hurt our chances at Rutgers when Connor went down with a sprained ankle...Ulis and Perkins came into the game and Iowa would not have won that game without their outstanding play. Then when Connor came back next game, Fran buried Ahron and Tony on the bench again....just saying.
Yeah, I get it. But honestly, I don't think it would have impacted the final result.
I would be more willing to say Oregon ran into an even more athletic team than themselves. And if that’s the case it shows you how bad we are in the athlete department.
I don’t wanna hear how they were more fresh blah blah blah. We were slow, they were fast. Truth is we were thoroughly beaten by afar superior athletic team. Until iowa recruits guards who can drive and play defense we are gonna be talking like this every year .
Are there really people out there who anchor to all these excuses for Fran's complete disconnect from how un-athletic Iowa is having a direct correlation to their inability to guard? If you are a high school kid watching Iowa what do you see? 1) Fran starts 5 white dudes which is almost impossible to do (see field of 68). 2) One of these is his son. 3) Announcers talk about Iowa struggling on the defensive end and politely say 'they aren't the most athletic team'---see # 1. 4) Iowa gets destroyed by Oregon and looks slow, un-athletic and totally overmatched. Kid starts following Oregon hoops (unless you are a big who wants to shoot 3's).
The optics around Iowa hoops are bad IMO. Fran and his super woke badges (maybe he should get one that says anti-losing in 2nd round) , EQUALITY on the jerseys but he starts 5 white guys. Joe T. gets in and gets yanked for same crap others do and don't get yanked. Perkins gets in for what the last 45 seconds in the first half? Murray gets some run but only due to Nunge's injury. Ulis sits on the bench. Iowa needs to press and there is a hockey line change to put the fast guys in?
To be clear, I am not implying anything about Fran here because he has always had the union mentality about his veterans but recruits don't understand that and other coaches will certainly use it against Iowa (especially in the current climate).
The optics around Iowa hoops are bad IMO. Fran and his super woke badges (maybe he should get one that says anti-losing in 2nd round) , EQUALITY on the jerseys but he starts 5 white guys. Joe T. gets in and gets yanked for same crap others do and don't get yanked. Perkins gets in for what the last 45 seconds in the first half? Murray gets some run but only due to Nunge's injury. Ulis sits on the bench. Iowa needs to press and there is a hockey line change to put the fast guys in?
To be clear, I am not implying anything about Fran here because he has always had the union mentality about his veterans but recruits don't understand that and other coaches will certainly use it against Iowa (especially in the current climate).
Totally agree. Until we stop recruiting whites we’re going to keep running into the same problem of not being athletic enough to compete.
Not my point at all. Point is that people think Fran is going to magically start coaching defense 'next year'. 11 years in and it's clear there is no defense on the planet that masks being slower than your opponent at multiple positions on the floor--especially at the 1 and 2. Don't believe me ok then name a team in the Sweet 16 that was as challenged at the guard spots as Iowa. What was the stat again? Oregon guards outscored Iowa guards 67-0 or something like that. Seriously, what are the odds of that?
Some of you guys need a reality check. You blame Fran for not recruiting athletic black players who can shoot, penetrate and dish, play defense, etc.
Why would those guys choose Iowa? Iowa is one of the least diverse states in the country. The team's mostly white because over half the team is from Iowa, and the state is 90% white and only about 5% black. Heck, the Murray twins wouldn't even be there if their dad hadn't played for Iowa. True or not, much of the country thinks of Iowa as nothing but corn fields. You think that appeals to kids who grew up in big cities or their suburbs?
And the players who can do all the things you want are 4-and-5-star recruits. Why would they choose Iowa instead of a school with a recent history of championships, final four appearances, etc? The athletic guys who would choose Iowa are going to be lacking something - no outside shot, no left hand, can't finish at the rim, turn the ball over too much, etc. So you settle for these guys, and hope they improve over time. (Edit: want to add that the Murray twins are exceptions here and are special, but again they're legacies.)
And you know when you give them significant playing time? When they've proven themselves in practice. How many of you have been to an Iowa practice this past season? Lots of armchair coaches around here who have never been to an Iowa practice, never gone over game film with the team, never seen that maybe in practice certain young guys are still struggling to run the offense right or position correctly in the zone or play weak side defense correctly in the man-to-man.
Buy hey, if they looked really good in that 3-minute span in one game, they've proven they deserve more PT.
Why would those guys choose Iowa? Iowa is one of the least diverse states in the country. The team's mostly white because over half the team is from Iowa, and the state is 90% white and only about 5% black. Heck, the Murray twins wouldn't even be there if their dad hadn't played for Iowa. True or not, much of the country thinks of Iowa as nothing but corn fields. You think that appeals to kids who grew up in big cities or their suburbs?
And the players who can do all the things you want are 4-and-5-star recruits. Why would they choose Iowa instead of a school with a recent history of championships, final four appearances, etc? The athletic guys who would choose Iowa are going to be lacking something - no outside shot, no left hand, can't finish at the rim, turn the ball over too much, etc. So you settle for these guys, and hope they improve over time. (Edit: want to add that the Murray twins are exceptions here and are special, but again they're legacies.)
And you know when you give them significant playing time? When they've proven themselves in practice. How many of you have been to an Iowa practice this past season? Lots of armchair coaches around here who have never been to an Iowa practice, never gone over game film with the team, never seen that maybe in practice certain young guys are still struggling to run the offense right or position correctly in the zone or play weak side defense correctly in the man-to-man.
Buy hey, if they looked really good in that 3-minute span in one game, they've proven they deserve more PT.
Last edited:
I’m just curious, and seriously I don’t know the answer but would you be advocating for some sort of hockey line changes with the younger players for a block of time each game during the season. I know people here hated that but how do you get the guys playing time otherwise and keep the veterans completely engaged?
Again it’s a question?
The answer to OP is that Fran is Mediocre because relative to his B1G peers, he is little bit less than 0.500 in conference over 11 years. There are advantages to stability in coaching for a program like Iowa, so the answer
for Iowa fans is for Fran to do a better job.
for Iowa fans is for Fran to do a better job.
Perkins and ulis were both big reasons why we won at Rutgers early in the big10 season....then they were both rewarded with bench time for idk how many games after.
There have been a lot of Iowa players during McCaffery's reign that have played major minutes from their very first game. You need to amend your statement to this just this year, where Keegan was the only freshman that played consistent minutes. Just on the current team, Garza, Wieskamp, and Fredrick all started their very first game in an Iowa uniform and Bohannon was a starter by game seven. McCaffery has no problem playing freshmen if he sees them as his best option.
Last edited:
Lol. Yes im sure they practiced like shit for the next 2wks after that Rutgers game and that’s why they didn’t see the floor 🙄
Unfortunately after watching the rest of the tournament I realized we were good, but not that good.
When the bracket was released, Joe Lunardi of ESPN said Oregon would beat Iowa. Jon Rothstein of CBS Sports agreed, stating that Oregon was now healthy, underseeded, and simply more quicker & athletic (especially their guards) than Iowa. Everything they said was spot on.
Most on here laughed at Lunardi and Rothstein.
So, the real experts at ESPN & CBS Sports were right.
They were better defensively, but often struggled to score. Certainly in the Oregon loss the starters struggled to score, but that wasn’t the issue most of the season.
Shocking that people who watch many hours of basketball as their job can easily see Iowa's athletic deficits and defensive shortcomings. But they haven't watched practices so I suppose it was just a lucky guess?
They didn't have to "practice like shit". Maybe they just weren't getting something the coaching staff was trying to teach. It isn't unusual for incoming freshmen to struggle to learn the system. Maybe they finally got it a couple weeks later, and started getting more PT.
At Indiana, Tony played almost 15 minutes and Ulis almost 6. Tony's +/- for that time was -14, and Ulis was -10. You know what that means, right?
Conner, everybody's punching bag around here, was +23 (best on the team) in 24 minutes. We lost by 2.
Just a little tidbit on the exalted +/- stat, from its creators, and how it should be taken with a grain of salt.
"To be fair, they weren't really intended to be a measure of "best players" and the stat's originators, Aaron Barzilai and Steve Ilardi, explicitly say that explaining:
"To be fair, they weren't really intended to be a measure of "best players" and the stat's originators, Aaron Barzilai and Steve Ilardi, explicitly say that explaining:
I agree. Nevertheless, the fact is Iowa got outscored badly with those 2 in the game.
To be brutally honest. Other teams are not putting out Connor Mcafferys and Joe Touissaints. Our lesser players are bad enough to take away all the good that Garza Wieskamp Bohannon and Murray bring. If we don’t get a pg and a Reggie Evans type big, we are going to remain a round of 32 team.
Rothstein really knows his stuff. He actually stays up on the East Coast & watches PAC 12 basketball. When he brought up how bad of a match up Oregon was for Iowa, I paid close attention.
we lost because we got outscored by their guards 60-something to 0.
Watching games this past weekend the teams left all have guards who can either finish at the rim or kick out to a teammate who can take an open 3 or make another drive to the rim.
Iowa does not recruit players who can do that, for some unknown reason.
Watching games this past weekend the teams left all have guards who can either finish at the rim or kick out to a teammate who can take an open 3 or make another drive to the rim.
Iowa does not recruit players who can do that, for some unknown reason.
Seems to me most were saying that Iowa’s ceiling was limited (final 16 or 8 at best) but this wasn’t even possible without playing defense (which is on Fran).
Or sheer luck that Oregon would have Open shots and shoot 30% instead of 70.
Which I agree with.
Or sheer luck that Oregon would have Open shots and shoot 30% instead of 70.
Which I agree with.
Why do we keep saying the Murray Twins are special? Keegan certainly has showed that but we essentially haven’t seen his brother on the court to know anything about him yet.
It's a little bit of both. Iowa didn't have the horses to run w/ a team like Oregon (or many other NCAA teams). So, it's on Fran for sticking w/ that strategy and on the players for not being good/quick enough.
Toughness, hustle, and grit are also missing from all of Fran's teams. I've seen more guys diving for loose balls in a half of any of the NCAA tournament games than what I saw from Iowa all year.
Toughness, hustle, and grit are also missing from all of Fran's teams. I've seen more guys diving for loose balls in a half of any of the NCAA tournament games than what I saw from Iowa all year.
Fair points. I differ slightly in that this year Fran actually had quality depth. In the past going to the bench was a major drop off so I understood why he rode his top 6-7 guys. This year he had multiple guys with injuries or who were not bringing anything on the court some nights. In these instances it is perplexing why Fran didn't go with some different combos. It took to the MSU game (maybe it was Rutgers) before Fran legitimately mixed it up and I would say the results were positive. Next game he went back to his standard rotation ( I think that was Indiana) and they lost.
Talk about profiling and stereotyping..............How long did it take you to come up with that without using the words ''black'' and ''white''?
Interesting. Oregon and West Virginia have a much lower black population than Iowa. And, Iowa State has over last few decades has had no problems bringing in top notch black talent. I'm not buying this at all.
Lol, typical liberal drivel. Oregon is exactly as I described and skin color is irrelevant, though you're trying to make it an issue.
People like you are the problem with society today, you try to see an issue where one doesn't exist.
I suppose Gonzaga should be canceled.
Peasant.
Yup, and the margin keeps widening after each round of games. Even if our roster is 100% healthy/well rested, I still don't see us hanging with most (if not) all of the teams in the elite 8. At the sweet 16 - maybe a non-typical Kansas team or a team like Loyola, but even they both got bounced somewhat handily....Fran really has to take a hard look at playing better defense (year around), to have any hope of making a deep run. I know people say Wisconsin (Bucky-ball) is boring, but the Kohl Center's rafters are definitely not full of 'NIT Participant' banners unlike CHA. Heck, Bucky had an off year by their standards and they still were somewhat competitive with a very salty Baylor squad....If we would have played Baylor, it would have gotten UGLY. Yes I realize we beat Bucky 3 times, so that just muddies the waters even more when trying to determine just how good was this year's team was.
You are absolutely correct about hindsight on this board. I had a post in Dec or early Jan (about the time KM started to get more time) saying that Perkins and Ulis also getting more time would probably have a large impact by late in the season. IIRC, NOBODY agreed with that and several ridiculed the suggestion.Fran is a good coach and a good recruiter. He's not great at either.
Lots of folks here are saying what Fran should have done, like play Perkins and Ulis more, with 20/20 hindsight. Maybe he should have, IDK - but I don't think the record would be any better, and they might have lost one of those close games.
This stuff about Fran burying talent on the bench - the same thing KF gets - it's all nonsense. Fran wants to win more than anyone on this board.
The Hawks just finished a year most of us couldn't even imagine 5 years ago. And, now the Hawks are a bunch of no-talent hacks let by an idiot?
Please.
I said that because of the far too many idiots on here that complain that Fran doesn't recruit black players and that Iowa will never be good until we recruit more black players who are more athletic. I am far from a liberal but your ass fits your head like a hat.
Perkins? He played 5:30 minutes, scored one point and had a turnover. Iowa wouldn’t have won at Rutgers without that?
