Howe: Rankings B1G Teams for '19-20 After NBA Draft Deadline

[WindsorHawk]

There are certainly more facts to support next year being a step backwards, than there are next year being a step forward.

That’s actually not true. It’s not possible to quantify the unknown. Patrick is ranked higher than the outgoing players were ranked. So he will automatically be better? No. Will he automatically be worse? No.

 

[WindsorHawk]

That's because there are zero facts to say we will be better, which is the case every single year for every team. But there are too many possibilities for next year to say as a fact we will be worse.

C’mon PC...We ran out of bread and cereal. The cupboard is empty. No way the bread and cereal you just brought home and are putting in the cupboard will be as good.

 

[WindsorHawk]

There are certainly more facts to support next year being a step backwards, than there are next year being a step forward.

You mean like the facts that said all of those freshmen in 16-17 would be better in 17-18? Every year is filled with variables. Could be good. Could be bad.

 

[WindsorHawk]

If you had to bet real money and it was a significant amount you as it relates to your financial situation, would you bet that Iowa would be better than 10-10 in the league, finish higher than sixth in the B1G and reach at least the Sweet 16 this coming season?

I'm not making a statement on which way I would bet. I'm asking which way you would bet.

I would never bet this kind of money on anything. I bet on all kinds of stuff but only at an affordable recreational level.

But in the spirit of the question...No way I would bet they will be better. No way I would bet they will be worse. There are too many unknowns...on our team and the other 13 conference teams. But if I’m making a small recreational bet I’ll go with better...because I’m hopeful they will be. But I have no hard evidence to support this.

 

[NikeHawk21]

That's because there are zero facts to say we will be better, which is the case every single year for every team. But there are too many possibilities for next year to say as a fact we will be worse.

Had Iowa returned Cook, Moss, and Bohannon I would have absolutely thought we will be better. Illinois I think will be better next year for example, so that contradicts your first point.

Secondly I have not argued that we will 100% for fact be a worse team next year. What I said is that if you were to make an argument based on facts at hand there are many more arguments that point to us being worse next year. There is a noticeable difference between those two arguments.

 

[RobHowe]

I would never bet this kind of money on anything. I bet on all kinds of stuff but only at an affordable recreational level.

But in the spirit of the question...No way I would bet they will be better. No way I would bet they will be worse. There are too many unknowns...on our team and the other 13 conference teams. But if I’m making a small recreational bet I’ll go with better...because I’m hopeful they will be. But I have no hard evidence to support this.

You're really not answering the question as I presented it.

Many of us have families and responsibilities that would make it irresponsible to bet over our heads. But that's what I'm asking as a hypothetical. I'm asking for an honest answer based on if you were made to wager and that wager came with repercussions for your financial well being if you lost, not as a fan betting with your heart.

 

[NikeHawk21]

That’s actually not true. It’s not possible to quantify the unknown. Patrick is ranked higher than the outgoing players were ranked. So he will automatically be better? No. Will he automatically be worse? No.

You mean like the facts that said all of those freshmen in 16-17 would be better in 17-18? Every year is filled with variables. Could be good. Could be bad.

As I mentioned to PC I’m not saying that it’s 100% certain that Iowa will be worse next year, what I’m saying is if one were to make that argument there are more facts to support Iowa taking a step back next year.

Freshman improving is not a “fact” as you so helpfully pointed out.

Here are some facts:

-Iowa loses at least 3 of their top 6 scorers from last year (could be 4 of 6 without JBO).

-Iowa loses 2 of their top 3 rebounders from last year.

-Iowa loses their top 2 steals and top 2 shot blockers from last year.

-Iowa loses at least 103 made 3pt shots next year and 182 if Bohannon is out.

-Iowa has 11 players on scholarship. Of those 11, 1 just had hip surgery and is considered questionable for the season. 1 was a walk on last year, 3 have never played in a college game, and 5 had less than 20 minutes of college action last year.

Those are facts. Now Iowa could overcome those things with other guys stepping up. It’s possible, just seems to be a stretch for me at this point.

 

[JG10Hawk]

If you had to bet real money and it was a significant amount you as it relates to your financial situation, would you bet that Iowa would be better than 10-10 in the league, finish higher than sixth in the B1G and reach at least the Sweet 16 this coming season?

I'm not making a statement on which way I would bet. I'm asking which way you would bet.

Gun to the head have to bet style? I'd take my chances and go with they won't be better than 10-10, finish higher than 6th, or play in the 2nd weekend. To think otherwise is being pretty optimistic if you ask me. I mean assuming JBo is out, the returning experience at the 1 and 2 combined is Connor at 18.6 mpg at the moment. That's it.

That said, I'm hopeful the new guys in the rotation are serviceable enough to allow Joe W and Garza enough space to lead the team to a solid season. Time will tell..

 

[PCHawk]

Had Iowa returned Cook, Moss, and Bohannon I would have absolutely thought we will be better. Illinois I think will be better next year for example, so that contradicts your first point.

Secondly I have not argued that we will 100% for fact be a worse team next year. What I said is that if you were to make an argument based on facts at hand there are many more arguments that point to us being worse next year. There is a noticeable difference between those two arguments.

Illinois looks like they will be better, but it's not a fact.

I know you didn't say its 100% we will be better. The person Windsor quoted said that. Then you responded to Windsor like he was wrong for arguing it wasnt a fact. Then I responded to you.

 

[PCHawk]

If I had to bet on whether we will be better or worse, I would bet worse. If you made categories that separated worse, pretty much the same, and better, I would put my money on pretty much the same. Cook was a good player and Moss was an ok player, but I don't think either were big time winning players. Meaning their overall game didn't help the team produce wins. You can throw Bohannon in that category too. The 2 big questions are if Wieskamp and Garza are poised to be big time winning players and are the guys coming in poised to replace the guys who weren't.

Cook is the easiest to make an argument against me. But with his inefficiency scoring, mediocre rebounding, and mediocre at best defense, I'd say he's easier to replace than the numbers suggest.

 

[WindsorHawk]

You're really not answering the question as I presented it.

Many of us have families and responsibilities that would make it irresponsible to bet over our heads. But that's what I'm asking as a hypothetical. I'm asking for an honest answer based on if you were made to wager and that wager came with repercussions for your financial well being if you lost, not as a fan betting with your heart.

Yeah...I know. I will answer each individually. I think we will be better than 10-10. I think our conference finish will be comparable. I think we will win an NCAA Tournament game. So my answer is better...but barely. If we have to be better in all 3 of the areas you referenced then I have to say worse. I can’t put a team with so many unknowns in the Sweet 16.

A better conference record is a better result regardless of specific place in the standings IMO. But I don’t think we will go undefeated in the non conference. But the schedule looks tougher...so that doesn’t necessarily equal worse.

 

[WindsorHawk]

While this is true, when you replace productive players with players who haven't been productive, the odds are, they won't be as productive. That isn't a huge logical leap.

Pemsl was productive IMO. Kriener was productive IMO...and will likely get more minutes. Nunge was productive IMO...just not strong.

Patrick is a highly regarded recruit. It’s not a reach to think he will be productive. I can say with absolute certainty there are lower ranked players that the vast majority of posters would say will most definitely be productive for their respective colleges next year. Just because he’s the coach’s son doesn’t mean he can’t/won’t be productive.