85-41

S

stlrnhwk

Well-Known Member
Free throw differential for Men and Womens game.

Going into the game Iowa was averaging 34.7 free throws and ISU was averaging 24.7. Iowa was top 15 in the country.

ISU shot 36 Iowa shot 21

Going into the womens game Iowa was averaging 19.8 free throws and ISU was averaging 20.6 with a season high of 31.

ISU shot 49 Iowa shot 20


All things being "average" iowa combined would have shot 55 and ISU would have shot 45.3

ISU had 40 more attempts than normal, Iowa had 15 less attempts. That's a differential of 55.

That is hilton magic.
 
cheeses1.jpg
 
It's funny because Iowa typically outshoots their opponents at the line. Does that mean they are getting favored by the refs?

I tend to think Fran's strategy was to try to take advantage of his depth, by making it a more physical game, thereby getting Niang and Ejim into foul trouble. Everyone knows that once that happens, ISU is in trouble.

ISU laid back, and didn't play as physical on D, knowing that they didn't have the depth that Iowa had. We don't want to get into foul trouble because it's a huge problem for us. Iowa not so much.

This isn't communism where each team gets the same amount of fouls, rebounds, turnovers, shots, etc.

Personally, I didn't see many if any calls that were head scratchers. But the losing team's fans always think they're screwed by the refs unless they lose by 25+, so I guess I'm not shocked. That includes ISU fans btw.
 
acgclone said:
It's funny because Iowa typically outshoots their opponents at the line. Does that mean they are getting favored by the refs?

I tend to think Fran's strategy was to try to take advantage of his depth, by making it a more physical game, thereby getting Niang and Ejim into foul trouble. Everyone knows that once that happens, ISU is in trouble.

ISU laid back, and didn't play as physical on D, knowing that they didn't have the depth that Iowa had. We don't want to get into foul trouble because it's a huge problem for us. Iowa not so much.

This isn't communism where each team gets the same amount of fouls, rebounds, turnovers, shots, etc.

Personally, I didn't see many if any calls that were head scratchers. But the losing team's fans always think they're screwed by the refs unless they lose by 25+, so I guess I'm not shocked. That includes ISU fans btw.
Click to expand...

I could think of at least half a dozen calls that went against Iowa that were complete bull****. For example, the foul against Stokes when he went in at the end of the first half- he beat Niang to the spot, stood straight up with both arms vertical, Niang lowers his shoulder and runs into Stokes, and draws the foul. New rules or not, that is NEVER, EVER a foul on the defensive player.
 
acgclone said:
It's funny because Iowa typically outshoots their opponents at the line. Does that mean they are getting favored by the refs?

I tend to think Fran's strategy was to try to take advantage of his depth, by making it a more physical game, thereby getting Niang and Ejim into foul trouble. Everyone knows that once that happens, ISU is in trouble.

ISU laid back, and didn't play as physical on D, knowing that they didn't have the depth that Iowa had. We don't want to get into foul trouble because it's a huge problem for us. Iowa not so much.

This isn't communism where each team gets the same amount of fouls, rebounds, turnovers, shots, etc.

Personally, I didn't see many if any calls that were head scratchers. But the losing team's fans always think they're screwed by the refs unless they lose by 25+, so I guess I'm not shocked. That includes ISU fans btw.
Click to expand...

I saw many calls and non-calls that had me wondering. And not just for one team or the other. As a former player and coach, the one thing I wanted from the refs was consistency. If you're going to call touch fouls, OK, call them ALL... don't just call them until you decide they aren't worth calling any more and don't start calling them because you let the game get out of hand. If you're going to allow me to body up and push a guy off the block, then don't start calling it 15 minutes into the game. The players also had some questioning looks to the refs but didn't argue with the calls - a sign of a well-coached team. But when even the Cyclone announcers are saying "He should have had a foul there" or "The play looked pretty clean from the TV angle" you KNOW the calls were not consistent.

No, I'm not saying the refs decided the game outcome. They most certainly did not. But even the players were perplexed by a lot of the calls and non-calls.
 
herkyattack said:
I could think of at least half a dozen calls that went against Iowa that were complete bull****. For example, the foul against Stokes when he went in at the end of the first half- he beat Niang to the spot, stood straight up with both arms vertical, Niang lowers his shoulder and runs into Stokes, and draws the foul. New rules or not, that is NEVER, EVER a foul on the defensive player.
Click to expand...
I think there needs to be some context when talking about how many FT's that Iowa shoots/game heading into the Iowa State game. Outside of Atlantis, the Hawks played at home and against pretty weak competition. Most of the games were blowouts and the ones that weren't, the other team was fouling to try and get back in the game. The FT stats are going to be skewed when you look at it from that perspective.

Bottom line, move on, it wasn't the refs fault.
 
The refs weren't the reason we lost the game in the last 2 minutes but they had allot to do with isu even having a chance to win with 2 minutes left.

I remember uthoff getting fouled late in the game and hoping he would make the 1 and 1 only to watch us inbound the ball because we weren't in the bonus yet. Then Marble got fouled and we still weren't in the bonus. I couldn't believe it was possible.
 
AdamHawk said:
Exactly. Pretty ironic coming from an ISU fan lurking on an Iowa board 3 days after the game.
Click to expand...

They will be lurking all year. It think it's an official ISU pastime. Do they even have a board...wouldn't know since I have better things to do like having a surgical procedure.
 
stlrnhwk said:
Free throw differential for Men and Womens game.

Going into the game Iowa was averaging 34.7 free throws and ISU was averaging 24.7. Iowa was top 15 in the country.

ISU shot 36 Iowa shot 21

Going into the womens game Iowa was averaging 19.8 free throws and ISU was averaging 20.6 with a season high of 31.

ISU shot 49 Iowa shot 20


All things being "average" iowa combined would have shot 55 and ISU would have shot 45.3

ISU had 40 more attempts than normal, Iowa had 15 less attempts. That's a differential of 55.

That is hilton magic.
Click to expand...

Iowa took 49 free throws against UNO. UNO took 16.

Im going to guess you werent all up in arms that night.
 
Campbell said:
Iowa took 49 free throws against UNO. UNO took 16.

Im going to guess you werent all up in arms that night.
Click to expand...

As has already been said, the losing team fouling to stop the clock and try to come back creates some serious inflation in free throw numbers. Omaha had like 7 fouls in the last two minutes, and all of them were intended to put Iowa on the free throw line. Iowa generally has an advantage in free throw attempts that comes with the territory of playing in transition and/or attacking the rim, where a huge proportion of fouls are called. Iowa opponents are usually pumping more 3s, sometimes twice as many 3s as Iowa shoots, thus they are susceptible to foul calls less often. The indicator of some fishy officiating is when a team shoots more 3s and more free throws than its opponent (which Villanova did against Iowa, by the way).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top