Ahmad Wagner a Hawk

[AdamHawk]

Yes when you completely ignore results that may be true.

No, he is right. Alford teams were typically second-tier B10 level teams or below. He had 1 really good season (but lost in the first round of NCAA's). Alford's career win percentage at Iowa was 59% and he won an average of 19 games per season. Iowa's win percentage last year was 64% (21 wins) and people are optimistic that they will have a similar record this year, if not better. So if you look at merely results, then yes that would be true. Not surprising that you don't really know about Iowa basketball though.

 

[clicheusername3]

No, he is right. Alford teams were typically second-tier B10 level teams or below. He had 1 really good season (but lost in the first round of NCAA's). Alford's career win percentage at Iowa was 59% and he won an average of 19 games per season. Iowa's win percentage last year was 64% (21 wins) and people are optimistic that they will have a similar record this year, if not better. So if you look at merely results, then yes that would be true. Not surprising that you don't really know about Iowa basketball though.

Nice cherry picked stats.

Alford - 3 NCAA tourney appearances
Fran - NONE

Alford - 2 Big Ten titles (of any kind)
Fran - NONE

Those are results, winning % is winning % and it's especially irrelevant in a sport that the number of games played each year isn't uniform.

 

[AdamHawk]

Nice cherry picked stats.

Alford - 3 NCAA tourney appearances
Fran - NONE

Alford - 2 Big Ten titles (of any kind)
Fran - NONE

Those are results, winning % is winning % and it's especially irrelevant in a sport that the number of games played each year isn't uniform.

Really? First of all, Fran was in the NCAA tourney last year whether you want to believe that or not. 2nd, as has been pointed out already, Fran has had to pick the program up out of the dirt to get it to the state that it's in currently (which again is NCAA tourney caliber). Alford didn't have the challenge of building the program up. He simply took a successful program and made it less successful.

As for your silly final sentence, that's exactly why I used win percentage - because the quantity of games aren't the same. If you play 10 games or 30 games, if you win more than you lose, that is considered a good thing. Not a difficult concept to grasp. I know you are trolling (it's what you do) but you should really try and do a better job.

 

[clicheusername3]

Really? First of all, Fran was in the NCAA tourney last year whether you want to believe that or not. 2nd, as has been pointed out already, Fran has had to pick the program up out of the dirt to get it to the state that it's in currently (which again is NCAA tourney caliber). Alford didn't have the challenge of building the program up. He simply took a successful program and made it less successful.

As for your silly final sentence, that's exactly why I used win percentage - because the quantity of games aren't the same. If you play 10 games or 30 games, if you win more than you lose, that is considered a good thing. Not a difficult concept to grasp. I know you are trolling (it's what you do) but you should really try and do a better job.

Please explain how using an entire career % of one coach (Alford) is equal to cherry picking one year's % from the other coach (Fran). Yes, great stat work.

 

[MiniMoeHawk]

Please explain how using an entire career % of one coach (Alford) is equal to cherry picking one year's % from the other coach (Fran). Yes, great stat work.

go back to the clown board already

 

[AdamHawk]

Please explain how using an entire career % of one coach (Alford) is equal to cherry picking one year's % from the other coach (Fran). Yes, great stat work.

Let me explain this to you in simple terms so you can follow along. BigD made the claim that the current Iowa team is equal or better than Alford's teams which you refuted. Because there is only one current Iowa team and there were 8 Alford teams, that is why I used an entire career % of one coach (Alford) and compared it to one year's % from the other coach (Fran). Do you follow now or do you need further explanation?

 

[clicheusername3]

Let me explain this to you in simple terms so you can follow along. BigD made the claim that the current Iowa team is equal or better than Alford's teams which you refuted. Because there is only one current Iowa team and there were 8 Alford teams, that is why I used an entire career % of one coach (Alford) and compared it to one year's % from the other coach (Fran). Do you follow now or do you need further explanation?

Well you didn't compare it to the current team because you used last year's team, which is why it's meaningless. Just because you have an explanation for what you're doing doesn't make it any more relevant. Maybe you should go with Alford's best team vs. Fran's team last year if you consider it his best team? Or maybe compare year three to year three. I don't really care what you do but you're not proving anything the way that you are going about it currently.

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

Nice cherry picked stats.

Alford - 3 NCAA tourney appearances
Fran - NONE

Alford - 2 Big Ten titles (of any kind)
Fran - NONE

Those are results, winning % is winning % and it's especially irrelevant in a sport that the number of games played each year isn't uniform.

LOL only C.UNT would be dumb enough to make the argument that winning percentage is irrelevant. You play to win the game!

 

[clicheusername3]

LOL only C.UNT would be dumb enough to make the argument that winning percentage is irrelevant. You play to win the game!

For this comparison LeaveitouttosuityourneedsMike23, weak. For example:

Coach A: games played 20, games won 10
Coach B: games played 30, games won 15

Same winning % right? Let's say that Coach A gets 10 additional games scheduled and goes 0-10, or 1-9, 2-8, 3-7, 4-6, 6-4, 7-3, 8-2, 9-1, or 10-0. Any of those outcomes produces a winning % other than 50%, and all of those outcomes together are much more likely than the one outcome that could cause the winning % to stay at 50%, which is 5-5.

It's the batting average rule.

 

[AdamHawk]

Well you didn't compare it to the current team because you used last year's team, which is why it's meaningless. Just because you have an explanation for what you're doing doesn't make it any more relevant. Maybe you should go with Alford's best team vs. Fran's team last year if you consider it his best team? Or maybe compare year three to year three. I don't really care what you do but you're not proving anything the way that you are going about it currently.

It is far from meaningless. How can you compare records of a team that hasn't played a game yet? The closest thing we have to the current team is last season since there are still players from that team currently on the squad. That team won more games (or higher percentage based on how you want to look at it) than the average Alford team. Since BigD didn't specify a particular Alford team to compare it to, I just used his entire body of work. If you are looking at things objectively (clearly you aren't), I think it's a safe assumption to say that this current team is at worst on par with where Alford's squads were during his tenure at Iowa.

I also explained why using Fran's entire body of work doesn't hold water - the teams were in completely different shape when the coaches took over their respective teams. If you want to compare year 3 to year 3, Fran took his team to the NIT championship while Alford lost in the NIT first round. Year 4? NCAA's for Fran vs. NIT again for Alford. I am looking at things based on numbers. Your conclusion is simply your opinion.

 

[HawkeyeMike23]

For this comparison LeaveitouttosuityourneedsMike23, weak. For example:

Coach A: games played 20, games won 10
Coach B: games played 30, games won 15

Same winning % right? Let's say that Coach A gets 10 additional games scheduled and goes 0-10, or 1-9, 2-8, 3-7, 4-6, 6-4, 7-3, 8-2, 9-1, or 10-0. Any of those outcomes produces a winning % other than 50%, and all of those outcomes together are much more likely than the one outcome that could cause the winning % to stay at 50%, which is 5-5.

It's the batting average rule.

LOL you should stick to your usual one sentence replies, any time you try to make longer posts you post your stupidity comes out full force.

 

[PCHawk]

Let me explain this to you in simple terms so you can follow along. BigD made the claim that the current Iowa team is equal or better than Alford's teams which you refuted. Because there is only one current Iowa team and there were 8 Alford teams, that is why I used an entire career % of one coach (Alford) and compared it to one year's % from the other coach (Fran). Do you follow now or do you need further explanation?

The breakdown you did is exactly what you do to prove bigd's claim that we are currently as good or better than the Alford tenure. Cliche is trying to change the arguement into whose tenure is better.

 

[AdamHawk]

The breakdown you did is exactly what you do to prove bigd's claim that we are currently as good or better than the Alford tenure. Cliche is trying to change the arguement into whose tenure is better.

Yep, Backtracking 101

 

[deanvogs]

For this comparison LeaveitouttosuityourneedsMike23, weak. For example:

Coach A: games played 20, games won 10
Coach B: games played 30, games won 15

Same winning % right? Let's say that Coach A gets 10 additional games scheduled and goes 0-10, or 1-9, 2-8, 3-7, 4-6, 6-4, 7-3, 8-2, 9-1, or 10-0. Any of those outcomes produces a winning % other than 50%, and all of those outcomes together are much more likely than the one outcome that could cause the winning % to stay at 50%, which is 5-5.

It's the batting average rule.

HAHAHAHAHAHA........winning % doesn't matter??? Reminds me of your earlier decision in life:

 

[Jacktronic]

Statistics, how do they work?

 

[BigD]

Thanks Adam and others for the support. Fran > Alford. Wouldn't want Alford back. Excellent point in the state of the program when the two coaches were hired. I didn't even bring that up. I wasn't trying to start an argument just stating how I honestly feel about both coaches and who I feel is the better coach between Steve and Fran.

 

[Tierney]

Thanks Adam and others for the support. Fran > Alford. Wouldn't want Alford back. Excellent point in the state of the program when the two coaches were hired. I didn't even bring that up. I wasn't trying to start an argument just stating how I honestly feel about both coaches and who I feel is the better coach between Steve and Fran.

I think Fran is at least as good as any previous Iowa coaches, and he is the Iowa current coach so, to me, he is greater than any of the past Iowa coaches. He is building a program that is going to be fun to watch and successful as long as he is the Iowa coach. I can't say that any coach in the country would of done a better job than Fran has done considering where the program was when he got here. I don't really doubt the lower level basketball programs were looking forward to playing Iowa in his first couple of years. It was a great opportunity for them, but I don't think they see the same opportunities anymore. There really isn't any reason for me personally to feel that any of the other coaches are greater than Fran unless there is a reason to be proven wrong. Everyone has their opinions, but that is my opinion. There are other programs that have more talent than Iowa. Hopefully, Fran will be correcting that more and more in the future. The three recruits coming in might not be five star players according to the experts, but there isn't anyone that can say they aren't talented.

 

[sportstalent]

From article:

A hard-nosed forward who stands around 6’7 but plays much bigger, Wagner is a high-effort guy who really competes on the glass. As a prospect who also starred on the football field, Wagner has a college ready body with good strength and athleticism, which helps negate his lack of height inside at the high major level.


More skilled than he often gets credit for, Wagner is a good mid-range shooter, a strong finisher inside and has continued to improve his skill-set every year he’s been at Wayne under head coach Travis Trice.

If this is the case and the article is correct. I like this guy, although I am not sure he will be a starter in his career, but having those attributes are something Iowa hasn't had. If he can be James Winters 2.0, I am good with that, or somewhere between Winters and Basabe I am good with this kid.

 

[docholihawk]

Out of left field...

ISU, we don't need him. We have 7 transfers coming in and every JC on the line. Why does ISU use transfers and junior college transfers? Because they can't do it the right way. Fred Hoiberg is all in with transfers but when the academic fraud and under the table payments come to light it's going to cost him his job.

 

[HawkeyeShane]

From article:

A hard-nosed forward who stands around 6’7 but plays much bigger, Wagner is a high-effort guy who really competes on the glass. As a prospect who also starred on the football field, Wagner has a college ready body with good strength and athleticism, which helps negate his lack of height inside at the high major level.


More skilled than he often gets credit for, Wagner is a good mid-range shooter, a strong finisher inside and has continued to improve his skill-set every year he’s been at Wayne under head coach Travis Trice.

Hmm...if this kid turns out to be the next Jarryd Cole I'll be a happy camper.