Looks like a $325k raise for Prohm. I'm going to assume you are ok with that now though.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...es-325000-raise-part-new-contract/3428416002/
Wigginton....He Gone
- Thread starter TCOOL
- Start date
Looks like a $325k raise for Prohm. I'm going to assume you are ok with that now though.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/s...es-325000-raise-part-new-contract/3428416002/
Wow. That may be factually true, but to come to the conclusion that the Big 12 did not underachieve in this tournament is quite a stretch.
I never made a comment about whether they under or over achieved or came to any conclusion, I merely contested the supposed fact that the Big 12 did the poorest relative to seed.
Bryce, I give Fred more credit for what he did in Ames than you do. My fear would be he accomplishes nearly the same in Lincoln but is able to add an elite player or 2 that wants to be in the B1G. I felt we got out-coached 3 out of 4 times in the games, so there is that too.
Ain't gonna happen. ISU has a good tradition. Nebby has never won a tourney game. Further and more important, the transfer market isn't solely his like back in the day. Then again, he is willing to take just about any risk on any player
Funny thing is, what Freddy did at ISU will make his life a hellava lot more difficult at Nebraska. He took ISU back to relevance and made Ames a transfer hotbed. Now he will have to compete with the superior ISU program for transfers in the midwest.
Actually, LC is right. Baylor and OU each won a game as a lower seed and Tech excelled so they seemingly did their part. KSU without Wade is just not very good. I thought they would win one and then get bounced but they did not.
KU was overseeded based on what they did with Azubuike and Vick early in the year. The wins over Mich St, Marquette and TN with those two playing got them a 4 but without them they played more like a 9 seed down the stretch. Losing to an eventual Final 4 team was not a surprise.
ISU was the only truly piss poor effort IMO.
He will have to compete with pretty much every program in the country for transfers.
Well, then I guess you're right - the "relative to seed" argument is definitely not a good measurement for how well a conference does in the Tourney. Sorry for the confusion.
Well, the relative to seed concept is Rocky's baby. Seems like a dumb way to measure potential success in a single elimination tournament, but that is why I responded to his post. His statements did not seem factual. Relative to seed, I believe the ACC, not the Big 12, had to have had the worst tournament of any major conference as they had 4 teams lose to lower seeds and none beat a higher seed. But anyone with a brain would not say the ACC had a bad tournament.
Like I said, no one with a brain would say the ACC had a bad tournament even though by Rocky's standards they did.
Oklahoma had a great draw vs Ole Miss. Ole Miss should have never been an 8 seed. KenPom had their final ranking at 50. They should have been a 10-11 seed.
Syracuse lost the guy that runs their offense right before the tournament.
Bragging about beating two higher seeds is very misleading here, especially when you simultaneously blame KSU's loss on Wade being out.
Pointing out a fact does not equal bragging. Rocky said Big 12 under performed relative to their seeds. I merely pointed out the results. Debating whether seeds were accurate is a completely different debate.
Relative to seed is kind of a ridiculous argument in general. A P5 conference, once expected to qualify 8 teams, only getting one team to the sweet 16 was a good indicator of underperformance.
Again, this was not my measuring stick. It is Rocky's and he seems to have gone AWOL in trying to defend it (and also seems to have no interest in countering my numbers that his claims were lies). I agree it is a stupid concept.
The Big 12 was what it was. Look at the KenPom and the NET rankings. In the final Ken Pom rankings, the Big 12 had 7 teams between 15 and 40. In the final NET rankings, the Big 12 had 6 teams between 17 and 34 and then TCU at 47. The Big 12 had a bunch of good, but not really great (ie Sweet 16 or better) teams. 6 did enough to make the Dance, 2 did not, but they ended up playing in the semifinals of the NIT and showed they had deserved to be legit bubble teams.
Man, perhaps you don't realize, but many just finally gave up with the fact that you are going to keep using Kenpom's idiotic rankings, rather than just admit the Big 12 sucked this year. Anyone who watched bball knew this. It was bad, worst in quite some time. Move on to next year. One team in the sweet 16 this year, and it wasn't surprising. Tech made a great run.
Oh no, I’m still here. A conference’s record based on seeding is about the only objective way to determine how a conference should do in the tourney.
If you have higher seeds you have an easier path. It’s too complicated for Iowapride apparently.
The B1G finished with the highest + margin in wins. Tied with the PAC 12. Not counting play in games.
The Big12 did poor even considering their high seeds. Tough break Iowapride.
LOL. This thread has become the ultimate p^ssing contest. I picture a bunch of girls I went to junior high with arguing back and forth.
Keep it going. Don't back down. Don't let that other guy get the last word. Don't let someone else twist your words around. Stand your ground. We have 7 months until the new season tips off.
Keep it going. Don't back down. Don't let that other guy get the last word. Don't let someone else twist your words around. Stand your ground. We have 7 months until the new season tips off.
Complicated? Not really. You have finally admitted after three posts of telling me how stupid I am that I was right and both of your statements were false:
Big Ten was not the best relative to seed, the Pac 12 was as you cannot simply ignore the First Four to fit your narrative.
Big 12 was not the worst relative to seed, the ACC was by far. And the Big 12 did not even underachieve "relative to seed", they shot par and won what they were expected to win.
But the fact that your objective way of looking at the tournament points to the Pac 12 being the best and ACC being the worst shows how horrible the concept is.
Last edited:
Lol, smart isn’t your strong suit is it?
Play in games don’t count. Plus they’re the same seeds anyway.
Now which conference was the best again?!?!
Lmfao!!! Here is my statement. I hate to make Iowapride look stupid yet again but I can’t help myself. Neither can he apparently! Lol
The B1G was the best, yet again.
And the Big12 was toward the bottom yet again.
I guess it’s blantantly obvious that I didn’t say the Big12 WAS the bottom P5.
I do enjoy making you look stupid though. My guilty pleasure I guess.
No, but you did say the following, which is what I responded to in the first place:
Big 12 won exactly the number of games it was projected to based on seed. Your statement was and still is, false. My commentary about the ACC being worse is just to laugh at how stupid the concept is.
Trying to ignore the First Four, which are not play in games, so that you can claim the Big Ten was the best (which does not imply a tie, it implies being the best, not equal to another league) is still comical.
You should have just let the thread die.
LOL!!!!!!! Tell that to the two best B10 teams that got steamrolled on the way to a Red Raider title appearance.
And just since you keep beating your drum of mental superiority, here are the high major conferences. Tell me again how the Big 12 was "towards the bottom"
Pac 12 +3.5
Big Ten +3
Big 12 0
AAC -0.5
SEC -1
Big East -1.5
ACC -7
Lol, how is it a victory beating a dead equal seed? 1st round games (play in games) cant count playing the same seed.
So you’re finally admitting that you were wrong about the B1G being the best!
I’ll give you that I guess.
I’m still blown away by how long it took you to figure out this concept.
And how many times I had to explain it to you.
It is hilarious that you actually believe that. I only asked for clarification because all your comments were false. You then pretended I was just not smart enough to figure it out. Yet here we are and all your comments were indeed false. Big 12 did not under acheive relative to seed. Big 12 was not near the bottom of high major conferences relative to seed. Big Ten was not the best conference relative to seed unless you ignore the First Four games in which case, they would tie for the honors and I guess Iowa must not have actually made the tournament in 2014.
How can they not count? They are part of the tournament. The projected odds of playing an equal seed would be 50% therefor the expected win total would be 0.5. It is really amazing you are not bright enough to grasp the concept.
LMAO how did Fran end up this Spring? Can you give me a quick recap? Cook? Moss? Bohannon? I'm sure he was out there working hard to replace that...
Clones added some pretty significant pieces for the future.
This thread is priceless!
You still sticking with this? Rasir most likely with a waiver, grill, and th me rest of them. Prohm will get
Players and will compete
5
Or maybe this guy? 11.6 PPG and 36% from 3 as a Freshman at Penn State. Trying to get a waiver to play right away and avoid a sit out year.
Latest posts
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters- Latest: Eliot Clough
-
-
-
-