WindsorHawk
Well-Known Member
We finished tied for 3rd. Don't confuse the standings with BTT seeding...and the 2 teams we tied with only played WI once.
Fran's Grade after 5 years
- Thread starter deanvogs
- Start date
We finished tied for 3rd. Don't confuse the standings with BTT seeding...and the 2 teams we tied with only played WI once.
Funny i amost mentioned them playing Wisconsin once too.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
again, apples and hand grenades.
No, Fran is not a legendary coach, like the 3 you mention above....agreed.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
^Me thinks another clone who thinks he's fooling someone.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
CalvaryHawk
Well-Known Member
Yeah, used to be that when football was over and basketball was starting, I dreaded it and couldn't wait until Fall. Now...yeesh...looking forward to basketball again, even though there are some serious questions about the team we'll see on the court. Not qualified to grade coach...go with a B since the future is pretty unclear.
BigD
Well-Known Member
A group of us over on what used to be the Hawk central forum used to do a game thread on the forum there during all the Lick years. I've needed professional help and medications ever since.....lol. Hell no I don't ever want to go back to that and so I am grateful at what Fran has done thus far. I would however like him to now knotch it up a bit in recruiting and performance. Some have said that will happen with the recruits we have coming in next year. If true I am anxiously looking forward to see what they can do.
HawkeyeWalker
Well-Known Member
Pretty wide range of grades. interesting stuff.
B- Carver Hawkeye Arena can still be Cricket Hawkeye Arena at times, posing little help to the home team....no way a solid B or better given VERY average recruiting over the last 5 years. And that brings us to 5 years, which is 2 years longer than needed to show a one and done season. Folks, their is nothing wrong with a B-.....would have been better has he not lost so many last minute recruits the past 3 seasons....VERY discouraging! Had Iowa State actually done something noteworthy, Fran may have gotten a C+ given the Clones ability to out recruit and rebuild on the fly every 2 years....makes us look severely outworked. Whether you want to believe human nature or not, Fran is getting higher grades and benefiting because the Clones choked and did not make a deep run....had they done so, Fran would be getting a lot side by side evaluations from Hawk fans.
Last edited:
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
I'm not sure why so many are applying a grade based on recruiting?? Would you rather have Fran killing it on the recruiting front like Illinois (7) 4* recruits over the last 3 years, but having almost ZERO results on the floor (2 1st round NIT losses in the last 2 years).
I would bet some would "feel better" if Marble was a 4* who turned into 1st team All B1G and White was a 4* who now had his name littered all throughout Iowa's all time leader in all sorts of categories. Not sure why this matters, but it certainly seems to. I think Fran has hit on a recruit that is of 4* caliber each year even though they weren't ranked a 4* (Marble, then White, then Gesell & Uthoff, then Jok, then Uhl, and at least 1 FR this year). To me that is more important than securing a top 50 kid like Woody or Matt Thomas, or a top 125 kid like Ogs who just never give you the top 50 or top 125 results like a Marble, White, Gesell, Uthoff, and eventually Jok and Uhl will.
I would bet some would "feel better" if Marble was a 4* who turned into 1st team All B1G and White was a 4* who now had his name littered all throughout Iowa's all time leader in all sorts of categories. Not sure why this matters, but it certainly seems to. I think Fran has hit on a recruit that is of 4* caliber each year even though they weren't ranked a 4* (Marble, then White, then Gesell & Uthoff, then Jok, then Uhl, and at least 1 FR this year). To me that is more important than securing a top 50 kid like Woody or Matt Thomas, or a top 125 kid like Ogs who just never give you the top 50 or top 125 results like a Marble, White, Gesell, Uthoff, and eventually Jok and Uhl will.
NEIChawk
Well-Known Member
Your grade should be based on results with what Fran & Co. have as a team from year to year....not on recruiting.....I can agree w/some on that point.....Case in point, 4-5* kids that get their a$$es handed to them by our 2-3* kids, on paper they're better, on the field, maybe not so much...Fran has done the most w/what he has right now (resulting in a higher grade), recruiting, he's come close to some top notch kids, but not landed them (resulting in maybe a lower grade because maybe these kids could've been the cog in the wheel that got Iowa over the hump...i.e Ulis)....Fran has improved each year and I feel the results are there and heading in the right direction...
CPHAWK82
Well-Known Member
Nail on head post....Look at what Crean did with his #1 ranked recruiting class or this Illinois coach running off most of his players to make room for his new 4 stars. Would grade would some of you give them? They got their "recruiting" humming with lackluster results. Results are what we should be grading. Heck, I give Fran even more credit for outperforming those teams without getting a top target. Makes me even more excited to see what he can do if he actually does get a couple big gets. We also need to see the caliber of players coming in next year before giving a final grade on recruiting. I give him a B+ to this point. Would of been an A if not for the late season collapse last year, which maybe could been avoided if Marble had rallied the troops like White did this year. Lets also remember that the 2 best seniors Iowa is losing (White & Olaseni) were 2-3 star recruits. Ogs was a 3-4 star recruit......results matter.
HawgEyeState
Banned
I agree with BiasedHawkeye, an A-. I, being the Mayor of REALville, give Fran credit for Recruiting Woodbury, Mike Gesell,
Jarrod Uthoff and bringing in Whitey, plus Dev. All of them were A+ recruits and Fran convinced them to be HAWKEYES.
The Iowa Hawkeyes just got a TON of National, positive media exposure, the likes of which hasn't happened in a while.
The Hawkeyes return 3-4 starters, next year (Gesell, UTE, Woody, Jok/Sapp), so an A- very much in line.
GO HAWKS
I am a teacher so I will grade him by four quarters (quarter 1 includes first 2 years): Q1 = B+, because he started with such a low position which was not his fault and still got into the NIT; Q2 (year 3)= B, NIT finals (recruiting misses); Q3 (year 4) = B, NCAA 1st round (late season collapse); Q4 (year 5) = B+, NCAA 3rd round (road warriors). This teacher believes in extra credit, so when Fran develops players like Gatens, May, Gabe, Dev, and Whitey, I would give grade Fran a final five year grade of an A-. The only reason he's not a full A is because of his recruiting, I would blame it on his values of trying to get good characters with strong academics individuals to come to IA. This reason alone can limit the four and five star recruiting pool for IA. Just my evaluation.
eveningnewsteam
Well-Known Member
I think recruiting will pick up with being in the NCAA tournament a few times now. Mccaffery doesnt have to sell "hope" of getting to the tournament. Theyve been there now 2 straight years and proven, he can take them to the dance.
1977Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Guys, you can't have results or year to year continuity without good recruiting, and in my mind, that all starts with the ability to evaluate talent and fill whatever needs you have with quality players, and it ends with sealing the deal and getting a commitment. We only have one true post player for next year, so Fran hasn't quite done all he can in the recruiting department.
I think Fran is doing an excellent job overall, but I can't give him an A+ across the board because of the unfilled needs we currently have in the front court. Sorry. Now if he goes out and finds a good big guy that can come in and contribute right away next year, I will change my opinion here, but I have to go with what we know as of right now.
Obviously coaching is crucial - there are several coaches that can recruit but just don't get the results (Rick Barnes, Tom Crean, etc.) but IMO, you need to recruit AND be able to coach if you expect to win consistently. You can be the greatest coach in the world, but if you're failing to properly evaluate recruits and aren't bringing in players with adequate talent, there's only so much success you're going to have.
I agree, in the end, it's the results that count, but it's hard to get results without good personnel to go out and win for you.
Last edited:
ibahawkeye
Well-Known Member
Nobody is arguing that recruiting better can lead to better results.
But in the end it's the results that we are judging.
ColumbusHawk
Well-Known Member
But all four of them have rings.
