Who else thinks Fran’s 1st half 2 Foul rule leads to poor defense and rebounding?

[KcTo]

I’ve always put forth that Fran’s 1st half 2 foul rule is flawed contributing to his consistently poor defensive numbers and wonder who else thinks so, or not so?

Fran has a mandatory rule that once any player at any time in the 1st half collects their 2nd foul, they are automatically benched for the remainder of the 1st half. Fran has ardently adhered to this fact ranking in the 99th percentile of ‘2 foul participation’. When you collect your 2nd foul, you are done with no chance of reappearing in the half.

So, with that as a given under Fran, how does that affect the way players behave and what effect does it have on defense, particularly in the 1st half?

For one, every top starter is hoping to establish himself with some level of production for points and rebounds to add to their resume and position themselves for post season honors and more attractive post career options.

A. you certainly can’t do that from the bench with 2 fouls, so does that mean they play ‘differently’ or less aggressive defensively or rebounding in the 1st half?

B. At Iowa, your are effectively in foul trouble after collecting your 1st foul in the 1st half, as the 2nd foul earns you a full and automatic disqualification for the remainder of the 1st half.

This creates a scenario in the players minds where, I must ‘avoid fouls’ or I must certainly avoid getting my 2nd foul, and when they pick up their 1st 1H foul, they must therefore play like one does when they have ‘4 fouls’. We all know how a player plays when facing imminent disqualification, they play soft defense at the rim, and they avoid contact.

how can you play aggressive defense, aggressively box out, when you have 1 foul, and you know you will sit, knowing if your potential next step of your career is on the line that requires you to be ‘on the floor’?

Now this concept certainly doesn’t answer all of Iowa’s rebounding and defense issues, but time and time again we see Iowa fall behind in the 1st half (and for many reasons, some of them additive ) and time and time we see incredible 2H comebacks, in part fueled by much higher intensity defense (which can include rebounding too) that we don’t see in the 1st half.

I’ve always thought that Fran’s 2 Foul First Half benching rule plays a part in the poor 1st half defense which contributes 50% of the minutes to the total and contributes in a significant way to the consistently poor defensive efficiency that Fran’s teams always seem to perform at.

 

[iahawks10]

Please do share all of these incredible 2nd half comebacks you speak about. This should be pretty as it happens “time and time” again.

 

[KcTo]

Please do share all of these incredible 2nd half comebacks you speak about. This should be pretty as it happens “time and time” again.

I see you (yet again) miss the main point to discuss a minor supporting fact, but I’ll bite....

Last years most memorable, last year NCAA tournament, vs Tennessee

Last game @ Illinois down 15pt, 7m to go, OUTSCORE by 13 in 7m, closed for game tying shot
Last home game Purdue, down 43-25 at half, OUTSCORE Purdue 2H 43-35
tPSU 35-34 HALF, OUTSCORE and half 42-34 for win.

I’ll lump the following 3 together, the 3 games that CJF was out, the 3 games Fran was required to go with a big lineup, meaning there was more rebounding and defense I’ve muscle in the lane. Here we see a lineup that has the size to rebound and defend, without over committing fouls and Iowa playing 3 of its better games of the year with wins @MN, dominate win over tMSU, and a rather well played game @ MSU (until near POY Winston went for 19 2h appoints and 4-5)

Back tracing back next we see the defensive debacles @ Purdue and at IU being down by near 20 to both before a 2H rally at IU OUTSCORING in 2H cutting a 20 lead to 8,

we can then look at the 4 home game stretch Iowa was favored in and being -Behind- and -behind late- in all, at the 5 and 6 min makers forcing Iowa to go on:

Wisconsin down 12 with 7m to go
Illinois down 4 with 5 min to go
Rutgers down 5 at half and BEHIND with 2m to go,
Michigan down 7 with 7 min to go

All games Iowa is favored, all game at home, all games that Iowa was down late, all games that Iowa was forced into a comeback win...

maybe your definition of time and time again is more than 4 home games in row...?

There were handful of games Iowa cruised @ home, vs MD, tOSU, Neb, but for the most part they have underperformed in the 1h and have had to comeback late to win,

The evidence is strong that supports consistently poor 1h defensive efforts and Iowa has to consistently, (time and again) comeback in 2h to win or make a game of it...

This should be obvious to all, but there are always exceptions...

 

[TheTruthTheWholeTruth]

Does Izzo’s hurt MSU?

 

[ROCKY MOUNTAIN HAWK]

It’s a dumb rule he has.

Plus, how many players actually foul out each game.

The refs are always so worried about calling the 5th on a player. Just leave them in & let them play.

 

[TheTruthTheWholeTruth]

What about Bennett’s two foul rule at Virginia? Does that harm their D?

 

[papabeef]

most coaches have this rule , fran is not unique in its use .

 

[iahawks10]

I see you (yet again) miss the main point to discuss a minor supporting fact, but I’ll bite....

Last years most memorable, last year NCAA tournament, vs Tennessee

Last game @ Illinois down 15pt, 7m to go, OUTSCORE by 13 in 7m, closed for game tying shot
Last home game Purdue, down 43-25 at half, OUTSCORE Purdue 2H 43-35
tPSU 35-34 HALF, OUTSCORE and half 42-34 for win.

I’ll lump the following 3 together, the 3 games that CJF was out, the 3 games Fran was required to go with a big lineup, meaning there was more rebounding and defense I’ve muscle in the lane. Here we see a lineup that has the size to rebound and defend, without over committing fouls and Iowa playing 3 of its better games of the year with wins @MN, dominate win over tMSU, and a rather well played game @ MSU (until near POY Winston went for 19 2h appoints and 4-5)

Back tracing back next we see the defensive debacles @ Purdue and at IU being down by near 20 to both before a 2H rally at IU OUTSCORING in 2H cutting a 20 lead to 8,

we can then look at the 4 home game stretch Iowa was favored in and being -Behind- and -behind late- in all, at the 5 and 6 min makers forcing Iowa to go on:

Wisconsin down 12 with 7m to go
Illinois down 4 with 5 min to go
Rutgers down 5 at half and BEHIND with 2m to go,
Michigan down 7 with 7 min to go

All games Iowa is favored, all game at home, all games that Iowa was down late, all games that Iowa was forced into a comeback win...

maybe your definition of time and time again is more than 4 home games in row...?

There were handful of games Iowa cruised @ home, vs MD, tOSU, Neb, but for the most part they have underperformed in the 1h and have had to comeback late to win,

The evidence is strong that supports consistently poor 1h defensive efforts and Iowa has to consistently, (time and again) comeback in 2h to win or make a game of it...

This should be obvious to all, but there are always exceptions...

That’s the best you could come up with? Three losses (one was a blowout) and a win. Man those were some epic comebacks. How far did you go back?

ILL was tied at half. Your point was players being held out until half.... And I missed the main point or your nonsense?

The last game vs PU was over by half time, but you collect that moral victory of winning the 2nd half. Lastly, Iowa was winning at half vs PSU and won the game. Not exactly a miraculous comeback now was it?

Being behind late is irrelevant as your point was that Fran keeps his best players out until half. You mentioned the ILL at Iowa game and Wisc at Iowa game. Iowa was down 1 at half vs ILL and tied vs Wisconsin. Hardly comebacks. You could argue just as easily that the extra rest in the first half benefited the late push in both games.

You mentioned Michigan.... Iowa won the first half by four and the second half by three. Somehow that’s an epic comeback. The evidence is quite strong that you’re reaching we’ll beyond your capabilities here.

Iowa’s two best comebacks at the half were 5 (Rutgers at home and @ Minn). I’m not sure anyone would argue that Fran mismanaged Garza’s minutes vs Minnesota, except maybe a fool. But carry on.


Here’s the flaw with your thought process. You say that players play scared and put forth a poor defensive effort with one foul. Do you think that would change with a player continuing to play after picking up two fouls? Do you think opposing teams wouldn’t attack that player routinely?

Let me ask you this (well two things) 1) Has Fran ever had a player re-enter the first half after picking up his 2nd foul? 2) After Kriener picked up his 2nd foul at ILL in four minutes of action, do you still claim he’s not foul prone?

 

[hawkeyeinmo]

It’s not just “Fran’s rule”. It is generally used by 90% of the NCAA coaches. Sometimes I wonder if some of the fans that post on here EVER watch a college basketball game not involving Iowa.

 

[kzoohawk80]

Fran doesn't like his teams fouling in general. That has a bigger effect to me on defense with Fran's teams .

 

[BBHawk]

It's not the 2-foul "rule" that hurts Iowa, it's the 2 fouls. The "rule" is a sensible way to deal with the situation, especially when there are other capable players on the team.

 

[BubsFinn]

There are all kinds of reasons why we suck at rebounding. Guys having 2 fouls isn't one of them.

 

[KcTo]

That’s the best you could come up with? Three losses (one was a blowout) and a win. Man those were some epic comebacks. How far did you go back?

ILL was tied at half. Your point was players being held out until half.... And I missed the main point or your nonsense?

The last game vs PU was over by half time, but you collect that moral victory of winning the 2nd half. Lastly, Iowa was winning at half vs PSU and won the game. Not exactly a miraculous comeback now was it?

Being behind late is irrelevant as your point was that Fran keeps his best players out until half. You mentioned the ILL at Iowa game and Wisc at Iowa game. Iowa was down 1 at half vs ILL and tied vs Wisconsin. Hardly comebacks. You could argue just as easily that the extra rest in the first half benefited the late push in both games.

You mentioned Michigan.... Iowa won the first half by four and the second half by three. Somehow that’s an epic comeback. The evidence is quite strong that you’re reaching we’ll beyond your capabilities here.

Iowa’s two best comebacks at the half were 5 (Rutgers at home and @ Minn). I’m not sure anyone would argue that Fran mismanaged Garza’s minutes vs Minnesota, except maybe a fool. But carry on.


Here’s the flaw with your thought process. You say that players play scared and put forth a poor defensive effort with one foul. Do you think that would change with a player continuing to play after picking up two fouls? Do you think opposing teams wouldn’t attack that player routinely?

Let me ask you this (well two things) 1) Has Fran ever had a player re-enter the first half after picking up his 2nd foul? 2) After Kriener picked up his 2nd foul at ILL in four minutes of action, do you still claim he’s not foul prone?

“..You say that players play scared and put forth a poor defensive effort with one foul....”

actually the data tells us, tells me, tells us all, if your willing to look at it, that players with 2 1H fouls foul less frequently than those with 0 or 1 foul, and those with 1 1st half foul foul less frequently than those with 0 fouls.
So it clearly shows us players foul less when they have fouls, that is an accepted data point, yes?

We know with Fran, that no matter who you are or what game it is, when you get your 2nd 1H foul, you are benched for the remainder of the half. Regardless of your ability to okay with fouls. (Fran is #314 of 321).

Players want to stay on the court, they want to put up numbers, that can not do it from the bench, and they all know not to pick up 1H fouls, as this is the surest way to limit their minutes played.

so when give the opportunity to play aggressively on a play that might incur a foul, or to back off, and preserve your playing time, What do they do? They back off. Results = less aggressive play.

This 2 foul participation rule clearly does not help your competitiveness in the 1h. It hurts it’s by creating the scenario where your players know that being aggressive, will hurt their minutes played.

as opposed to coaches who will sit players with 2 fouls, but re-enter them in 1H, allowing players to play with the knowledge that “I can play aggressively on defense and on boards and if I do pick up a second foul, coach will pull me, but play me again in 1st half...” results = continued aggressive play.

The case is clearly made where the 2 foul participation rule makes players less aggressive.

a strong case can also be made than the 2 foul rule hurts your teams chance if the coach benches a key contributor that has the proven ability to play at high defensive / offensive level with fouls.

for example we see at SDSU, where Garza sits most of 1st half, is voluntarily benched and removed from action by Fran, is limited to only 25m and 9 points, and ends up with only 3 fouls for game. A text book example of how the 2Foul rule was the primary reason for minutes reduction, and grazas worst game of year, why? because he was voluntarily benched, even though he has a proven record of playing without fouling.

As for Kriener bring foul prone, I would say that you should not look at 4mins in 1 game, and use that as your Evidence as being foul prone, that is the poster child example of ‘small sample size’ bring used.

we should use his entire body of work this season, or all the games he’s started, and include this 4m piece, and then make a judgement using statistically significant numbers .

so absolutely no, these 4m don’t prove that he’s foul prone anymore that JoeTO getting 3 fouls in the 1st 3m of the Cincinnati game proves that JoeTO is foul prone.

Fran was recently ranked #314 of 321 coaches, so he far far far the the side of the bell curve, and that side of the bell curve most promotes less aggressive play...

I think there’s quite a bit in here to support a component to the poorer 1H showings.

 

[hawkeyeinmo]

“..You say that players play scared and put forth a poor defensive effort with one foul....”

actually the data tells us, tells me, tells us all, if your willing to look at it, that players with 2 1H fouls foul less frequently than those with 0 or 1 foul, and those with 1 1st half foul foul less frequently than those with 0 fouls.
So it clearly shows us players foul less when they have fouls, that is an accepted data point, yes?

We know with Fran, that no matter who you are or what game it is, when you get your 2nd 1H foul, you are benched for the remainder of the half. Regardless of your ability to okay with fouls. (Fran is #314 of 321).

Players want to stay on the court, they want to put up numbers, that can not do it from the bench, and they all know not to pick up 1H fouls, as this is the surest way to limit their minutes played.

so when give the opportunity to play aggressively on a play that might incur a foul, or to back off, and preserve your playing time, What do they do? They back off. Results = less aggressive play.

This 2 foul participation rule clearly does not help your competitiveness in the 1h. It hurts it’s by creating the scenario where your players know that being aggressive, will hurt their minutes played.

as opposed to coaches who will sit players with 2 fouls, but re-enter them in 1H, allowing players to play with the knowledge that “I can play aggressively on defense and on boards and if I do pick up a second foul, coach will pull me, but play me again in 1st half...” results = continued aggressive play.

The case is clearly made where the 2 foul participation rule makes players less aggressive.

a strong case can also be made than the 2 foul rule hurts your teams chance if the coach benches a key contributor that has the proven ability to play at high defensive / offensive level with fouls.

for example we see at SDSU, where Garza sits most of 1st half, is voluntarily benched and removed from action by Fran, is limited to only 25m and 9 points, and ends up with only 3 fouls for game. A text book example of how the 2Foul rule was the primary reason for minutes reduction, and grazas worst game of year, why? because he was voluntarily benched, even though he has a proven record of playing without fouling.

As for Kriener bring foul prone, I would say that you should not look at 4mins in 1 game, and use that as your Evidence as being foul prone, that is the poster child example of ‘small sample size’ bring used.

we should use his entire body of work this season, or all the games he’s started, and include this 4m piece, and then make a judgement using statistically significant numbers .

so absolutely no, these 4m don’t prove that he’s foul prone anymore that JoeTO getting 3 fouls in the 1st 3m of the Cincinnati game proves that JoeTO is foul prone.

Fran was recently ranked #314 of 321 coaches, so he far far far the the side of the bell curve, and that side of the bell curve most promotes less aggressive play...

I think there’s quite a bit in here to support a component to the poorer 1H showings.

Who did this “ranking”? Considering Iowa is ranked as the 11th best job in the B1G when factors such as history, recruiting budget, recruiting base, facilities, media exposure, and admission requirements he ranks near the top in the conference and overachieved in most years.

 

[Pepperman]

At first, I thought "no, that can't be... just about every coach does this"... but now I'm kind of curious how that 99th percentile ranking works for participation with 2 fouls.

So, ok, what we know is Fran will sit any player that gets 2 fouls in the first half... not a big surprise as again, I think most coaches do this, but data seems to show Fran is more rigid with the rule.

I tend to think Iowa's coaching staff is clueless on defense and rebounding, given they are issues year after year after year. But maybe there is a very tiny part of it that is influenced by his 2-foul rule, I don't know.

 

[iahawks10]

“..You say that players play scared and put forth a poor defensive effort with one foul....”

actually the data tells us, tells me, tells us all, if your willing to look at it, that players with 2 1H fouls foul less frequently than those with 0 or 1 foul, and those with 1 1st half foul foul less frequently than those with 0 fouls.
So it clearly shows us players foul less when they have fouls, that is an accepted data point, yes?

We know with Fran, that no matter who you are or what game it is, when you get your 2nd 1H foul, you are benched for the remainder of the half. Regardless of your ability to okay with fouls. (Fran is #314 of 321).

Players want to stay on the court, they want to put up numbers, that can not do it from the bench, and they all know not to pick up 1H fouls, as this is the surest way to limit their minutes played.

so when give the opportunity to play aggressively on a play that might incur a foul, or to back off, and preserve your playing time, What do they do? They back off. Results = less aggressive play.

This 2 foul participation rule clearly does not help your competitiveness in the 1h. It hurts it’s by creating the scenario where your players know that being aggressive, will hurt their minutes played.

as opposed to coaches who will sit players with 2 fouls, but re-enter them in 1H, allowing players to play with the knowledge that “I can play aggressively on defense and on boards and if I do pick up a second foul, coach will pull me, but play me again in 1st half...” results = continued aggressive play.

The case is clearly made where the 2 foul participation rule makes players less aggressive.

a strong case can also be made than the 2 foul rule hurts your teams chance if the coach benches a key contributor that has the proven ability to play at high defensive / offensive level with fouls.

for example we see at SDSU, where Garza sits most of 1st half, is voluntarily benched and removed from action by Fran, is limited to only 25m and 9 points, and ends up with only 3 fouls for game. A text book example of how the 2Foul rule was the primary reason for minutes reduction, and grazas worst game of year, why? because he was voluntarily benched, even though he has a proven record of playing without fouling.

As for Kriener bring foul prone, I would say that you should not look at 4mins in 1 game, and use that as your Evidence as being foul prone, that is the poster child example of ‘small sample size’ bring used.

we should use his entire body of work this season, or all the games he’s started, and include this 4m piece, and then make a judgement using statistically significant numbers .

so absolutely no, these 4m don’t prove that he’s foul prone anymore that JoeTO getting 3 fouls in the 1st 3m of the Cincinnati game proves that JoeTO is foul prone.

Fran was recently ranked #314 of 321 coaches, so he far far far the the side of the bell curve, and that side of the bell curve most promotes less aggressive play...

I think there’s quite a bit in here to support a component to the poorer 1H showings.

Here you go again with “small sample size” and then turn around and give an example of small sample size.

This is how ignorant your stance is. You use Garza and the SDSU game for example. A game I was at mind you, so I’m fairly familiar with it. Iowa grew a first half lead to 16 without Garza. Garza left the first half at the 12:23 mark after picking up his 2nd, Iowa was up 3 at that time. So Iowa grew the lead to 16, which SDSU cut to 9 just before half. Now Garza plays a majority of the second half and SDSU out scores Iowa by 19 and wins by 10. Is this all Garza’s fault? Absolutely not. It just points out how ignorant your stance and example is. Also for the record, Garza ended with 4 fouls, not 3. Garza had 7 first half points in limited minutes. He scored 2 points (19:19 mark 2nd half) playing nearly all of the second half..... Spin that one. You’re right, Garza was shut down, it certainly wasn’t due to fouls.

Back to your “small sample size”. How many four minutes/1 game samples do you need to be given before you see a pattern? You’ve been given at least three examples, if not four. That’s called a pattern.

 

[TheTruthTheWholeTruth]

Fran is ranked 300/353
Tony Bennett is ranked 327/353

 

[MepoDawg#]

Even if Fran didn’t remove the players after two first half fouls, the players themselves will be more careful playing to not pick up more fouls thus impacting physicality.

 

[iahawks10]

so absolutely no, these 4m don’t prove that he’s foul prone anymore that JoeTO getting 3 fouls in the 1st 3m of the Cincinnati game proves that JoeTO is foul prone.

What are you talking about here? You’ve posted so many inaccuracies, it’s hard to sort through your BS.

Toussaint had 3 fouls vs Cincy. Here’s where they were in the game:
1st half - 18:35
1st half - 1:13

2nd half - 14:09


Also a good try comparing a FR, playing his 12th game, to a SR.

 

[TheTruthTheWholeTruth]

OP

Please post the 2 foul participation numbers for the top 10 in defensive efficiency for 2020. TIA

 

[HawkRugged17]

 

[KcTo]

It’s not just “Fran’s rule”. It is generally used by 90% of the NCAA coaches. Sometimes I wonder if some of the fans that post on here EVER watch a college basketball game not involving Iowa.

What are you talking about here? You’ve posted so many inaccuracies, it’s hard to sort through your BS.

Toussaint had 3 fouls vs Cincy. Here’s where they were in the game:
1st half - 18:35
1st half - 1:13

2nd half - 14:09


Also a good try comparing a FR, playing his 12th game, to a SR.

the point is using fouls in a 4min time frame is the metrics being discussed:

Kriener 2 fouls in 4 mins proves foul proneness.
Is no more valid than JoeTO 3 fouls in 4 minutes At Cincinnati.

that is the point, these are the metrics.

I contend that you should use the entire years body of work
Or
Games that kriener has started as more representative of foul proneness.

that should be obvious vs “look at this 4min time frame” that proves a point

We can stick to this subject if it makes it easier for you to focus on 1 topics at a time...

 

[KcTo]

Fran is ranked 300/353
Tony Bennett is ranked 327/353

Here is the link that I interpret as being for a 7 yr period
https://kenpom.com/blog/foul-trouble-data-by-coach/

it’s shows Fran at 314 and is the data point I shared.
Bennett is lower at 305. (Although similar)

 

[iahawks10]

We can stick to this subject if it makes it easier for you to focus on 1 topics at a time...

Yeah, let’s stick to the topic of how wrong you are. Go on about that SDSU game that Garza was held out of.

 

[KcTo]

It's not the 2-foul "rule" that hurts Iowa, it's the 2 fouls. The "rule" is a sensible way to deal with the situation, especially when there are other capable players on the team.

Every coach is faced with the 2 foul 1H scenario, and they face the same question “when do I bring this player in, how do I maximize their playing time and maximize out teams chances to win”

But coaches handle the same dilemma quite differently:

Frans plays players only ~6% of the minutes while at the other end of the spectrum coaches play players ~60% of the minutes, that is about 10x change.

So I agree all coaches have a 2 foul rule, how coaches handle that is very different

 

[KcTo]

Yeah, let’s stick to the topic of how wrong you are. Go on about that SDSU game that Garza was held out of.

Great, so we are in agreement that the SSS you asserted with Kriener is invalid ?

 

[iahawks10]

Great, so we are in agreement that the SSS you asserted with Kriener is invalid ?

LOL, you are completely oblivious. I’m pretty sure you don’t even know the definition of prone or sample. To continue proving you wrong is pointless, because you’ll be back with a different way to promote your nonsense.

Do you realize that no one has agreed with you yet? Think about that before you post your next thread.

 

[paladinhawk]

Now this concept certainly doesn’t answer all of Iowa’s rebounding and defense issues, but time and time again we see Iowa fall behind in the 1st half (and for many reasons, some of them additive ) and time and time we see incredible 2H comebacks, in part fueled by much higher intensity defense (which can include rebounding too) that we don’t see in the 1st half.

I see you (yet again) miss the main point to discuss a minor supporting fact, but I’ll bite....

Last years most memorable, last year NCAA tournament, vs Tennessee

Last game @ Illinois down 15pt, 7m to go, OUTSCORE by 13 in 7m, closed for game tying shot

Umm Iowa and Illinois were tied 41 each at halftime, which pretty blows up your 'sucky defense in the 1st due to starters riding the bench' theory.

 

[iahawks10]

Umm Iowa and Illinois were tied 41 each at halftime, which pretty blows up your 'sucky defense in the 1st due to starters riding the bench' theory.

It gets better. Check out his Garza stance on the SDSU game. Because of his 2 fouls in the first half, Iowa lost because Garza only had nine points and his worst game.

What he doesn’t mention is that Iowa was up by three when Garza went out in the first half. Garza had 7 points at that point. Iowa went up by 16, before eventually leading by 9 at half. Garza comes back and plays a majority of the second half. He scores one second half basket in the first minute and Iowa loses by 10. Genius correlates this loss to Fran’s two foul rule. Unbelievable.

 

[BBHawk]

Every coach is faced with the 2 foul 1H scenario, and they face the same question “when do I bring this player in, how do I maximize their playing time and maximize out teams chances to win”

But coaches handle the same dilemma quite differently:

Frans plays players only ~6% of the minutes while at the other end of the spectrum coaches play players ~60% of the minutes, that is about 10x change.

So I agree all coaches have a 2 foul rule, how coaches handle that is very different

You have stats for that? Link?

 

[paladinhawk]

Here is the link that I interpret as being for a 7 yr period
https://kenpom.com/blog/foul-trouble-data-by-coach/

it’s shows Fran at 314 and is the data point I shared.
Bennett is lower at 305. (Although similar)

1 Larry Hunter (7) Western Carolina 2135 1189 55.7
2 Keith Richard (6) Louisiana Monroe 1777 939 52.8
3 Ron Hunter (7) Georgia St. 1925 948 49.2
4 Jim Boeheim (7) Syracuse 1651 810 49.1
5 Greg Kampe (7) Oakland 2209 1067 48.3
6 George Ivory (7) Arkansas Pine Bluff 1758 849 48.3
7 Dave Simmons (7) McNeese St. 1555 707 45.5
8 Randy Bennett (7) Saint Mary's 1782 804 45.1
9 Matthew Driscoll (7) North Florida 1690 756 44.7
10 Bob Walsh (2) Maine 576 254 44.1
11 Gregg Nibert (7) Presbyterian 1726 755 43.7
12 Byron Samuels (2) Florida A&M 472 203 43.0
13 Tim O'Shea (7) Bryant 2114 900 42.6
14 Tim Floyd (6) UTEP 1735 728 42.0
15 Bryce Drew (5) Vanderbilt 1294 541 41.8
16 Eddie Payne (7) USC Upstate 1701 695 40.9
17 Mike Brey (7) Notre Dame 1498 607 40.5
18 Matthew Graves (3) South Alabama 768 306 39.8
19 Jimmy Patsos (7) Siena 2724 1065 39.1
20 Jay Ladner (2) Southeastern Louisiana 595 232 39.0

Whole lotta NCAA success on that list....

 

[iahawks10]

1 Larry Hunter (7) Western Carolina 2135 1189 55.7
2 Keith Richard (6) Louisiana Monroe 1777 939 52.8
3 Ron Hunter (7) Georgia St. 1925 948 49.2
4 Jim Boeheim (7) Syracuse 1651 810 49.1
5 Greg Kampe (7) Oakland 2209 1067 48.3
6 George Ivory (7) Arkansas Pine Bluff 1758 849 48.3
7 Dave Simmons (7) McNeese St. 1555 707 45.5
8 Randy Bennett (7) Saint Mary's 1782 804 45.1
9 Matthew Driscoll (7) North Florida 1690 756 44.7
10 Bob Walsh (2) Maine 576 254 44.1
11 Gregg Nibert (7) Presbyterian 1726 755 43.7
12 Byron Samuels (2) Florida A&M 472 203 43.0
13 Tim O'Shea (7) Bryant 2114 900 42.6
14 Tim Floyd (6) UTEP 1735 728 42.0
15 Bryce Drew (5) Vanderbilt 1294 541 41.8
16 Eddie Payne (7) USC Upstate 1701 695 40.9
17 Mike Brey (7) Notre Dame 1498 607 40.5
18 Matthew Graves (3) South Alabama 768 306 39.8
19 Jimmy Patsos (7) Siena 2724 1065 39.1
20 Jay Ladner (2) Southeastern Louisiana 595 232 39.0

Whole lotta NCAA success on that list....

Pretty sure Fran is 2-0 vs this list this year.

 

[TheTruthTheWholeTruth]

Here is the link that I interpret as being for a 7 yr period
https://kenpom.com/blog/foul-trouble-data-by-coach/

it’s shows Fran at 314 and is the data point I shared.
Bennett is lower at 305. (Although similar)

LOL

Dude, you are using a link from 2016. Look at real time data from this year, post the top 10 in defensive efficiency, and then we can have a real conversation.

 

[paladinhawk]

Let's look at the bottom 20 on the list:

302 Chris Beard (1) Texas Tech 198 16 8.1
303 Eric Konkol (1) Louisiana Tech 243 19 7.8
304 Archie Miller (5) Dayton 1287 100 7.8
305 Tony Bennett (7) Virginia 1474 102 6.9
306 Matt Matheny (7) Elon 1867 129 6.9
307 Mark Fox (7) Georgia 1826 126 6.9
308 John Beilein (7) Michigan 1277 88 6.9
309 Jay Spoonhour (4) Eastern Illinois 803 54 6.7
310 Pat Kelsey (4) Winthrop 867 58 6.7
311 Greg Lansing (6) Indiana St. 1312 84 6.4
312 Gregg Marshall (7) Wichita St. 1844 112 6.1
313 Murray Garvin (3) South Carolina St. 645 38 5.9
314 Fran McCaffery (7) Iowa 1458 84 5.8
315 Tubby Smith (7) Memphis 1310 64 4.9
316 Joe Dooley (3) Florida Gulf Coast 983 48 4.9
317 Tony Jasick (5) Jacksonville 1615 76 4.7
318 Michael Huger (1) Bowling Green 221 8 3.6
319 Matt McCall (1) Chattanooga 191 6 3.1
320 Tic Price (2) Lamar 717 16 2.2
321 Tim Jankovich (3) SMU 798 13 1.6
.....
Miller, Bennett, Beilein, and Marshall. A slightly difference success rate than the top 20.

 

[iahawks10]

Let's look at the bottom 20 on the list:

302 Chris Beard (1) Texas Tech 198 16 8.1
303 Eric Konkol (1) Louisiana Tech 243 19 7.8
304 Archie Miller (5) Dayton 1287 100 7.8
305 Tony Bennett (7) Virginia 1474 102 6.9
306 Matt Matheny (7) Elon 1867 129 6.9
307 Mark Fox (7) Georgia 1826 126 6.9
308 John Beilein (7) Michigan 1277 88 6.9
309 Jay Spoonhour (4) Eastern Illinois 803 54 6.7
310 Pat Kelsey (4) Winthrop 867 58 6.7
311 Greg Lansing (6) Indiana St. 1312 84 6.4
312 Gregg Marshall (7) Wichita St. 1844 112 6.1
313 Murray Garvin (3) South Carolina St. 645 38 5.9
314 Fran McCaffery (7) Iowa 1458 84 5.8
315 Tubby Smith (7) Memphis 1310 64 4.9
316 Joe Dooley (3) Florida Gulf Coast 983 48 4.9
317 Tony Jasick (5) Jacksonville 1615 76 4.7
318 Michael Huger (1) Bowling Green 221 8 3.6
319 Matt McCall (1) Chattanooga 191 6 3.1
320 Tic Price (2) Lamar 717 16 2.2
321 Tim Jankovich (3) SMU 798 13 1.6
.....
Miller, Bennett, Beilein, and Marshall. A slightly difference success rate than the top 20.

Add Beard and Jankovich. OP has this theory nailed.

 

[paladinhawk]

Add Beard and Jankovich. OP has this theory nailed.

OP nailed the coffin shut on his original argument?

 

[iahawks10]

OP nailed the coffin shut on his original argument?

The OP is so far removed from reality, even he doesn’t know what his original argument is. OP believes Ryan Kriener, who averages 5.3 fouls per 40min, isn’t foul prone..... Some people you just can’t help.

 

[KcTo]

It’s not just “Fran’s rule”. It is generally used by 90% of the NCAA coaches. Sometimes I wonder if some of the fans that post on here EVER watch a college basketball game not involving Iowa.

What about Bennett’s two foul rule at Virginia? Does that harm their D?

You can not compare Virginia and Iowa and try to draw the same playing strategies, let me explain

Virginia had 4 players drafted into NBA from the 2019 team.
Virginia has 1 player drafted into NBA from the 2018 team.
Virginia has had 6 players drafted into NBA since the last Iowa player drafted.

if your a coach and has an entire starting 5 of future NDA draft picks, and 1 guy gets 2 fouls, no big deal, you can literally still fill the flow with NBA talent.

That is so much different than Frans case, where the last NBA prospect he had was Aaron White in 2015.

so, the comparison with Virginia absolutely must include a discussion on available talent, and how that talent is utilized based on your roster and therefore comparing Bennett’s 2 Foul Participation to Frans is completely erroneous owing to the disparate talent pools both coaches have.

this makes sense, right?

 

[KcTo]

The OP is so far removed from reality, even he doesn’t know what his original argument is. OP believes Ryan Kriener, who averages 5.3 fouls per 40min, isn’t foul prone..... Some people you just can’t help.

He averages 18 minutes per game, so he doesn’t play 40min, so he rarely gets to a position where he in danger of disqualification, and we have seen only 4x in 30 games where he has even reached 4 fouls, so in ~10% of games is he in danger of disqualification and in only 2 (5%) has he fouled out (and 1x was at tMSU when he gave the 5th foul in last 0.30)

 

[TheTruthTheWholeTruth]

You can not compare Virginia and Iowa and try to draw the same playing strategies, let me explain

Virginia had 4 players drafted into NBA from the 2019 team.
Virginia has 1 player drafted into NBA from the 2018 team.
Virginia has had 6 players drafted into NBA since the last Iowa player drafted.

if your a coach and has an entire starting 5 of future NDA draft picks, and 1 guy gets 2 fouls, no big deal, you can literally still fill the flow with NBA talent.

That is so much different than Frans case, where the last NBA prospect he had was Aaron White in 2015.

so, the comparison with Virginia absolutely must include a discussion on available talent, and how that talent is utilized based on your roster and therefore comparing Bennett’s 2 Foul Participation to Frans is completely erroneous owing to the disparate talent pools both coaches have.

this makes sense, right?

You’re flat out wrong. There’s varying degrees of success when looking at 2 foul participation with a lean to coaches who are more conservative. But, it’s cool, most of your arguments fall flat when presented with actual data.