In a 4 year span, what is an acceptable NCAA tournament appearance rate clearly in?

[HaydenHawk56]

In Fran's first 4 years:
He would be in the zero, but other tourney appearances category under this poll 2 NITs, and 1 play in game. He will get a pass here for rebuilding from Alford and Lick years.

In Fran's 2nd 4 years he is batting 50% on NCAAs, 1 NIT, and very likely no tournament experience this year. I think this leans in the acceptable category.

My vote would be a 50% rate. I'm in the camp leaning I don't think he is going to get it done moving forward (based on the eyeball test), but the numbers is going to keep him here for a little while longer among other factors. They are hovering around acceptable.

What would your NCAA tournament acceptable numbers be for Iowa? I know some might feel the NCAA first 4 counts as an appearance, but I think that leans more on the other appearing in post season tournament side. If they win that game, then well yes, I think then they earned that NCAA tournament appearance for that year.

 

[PCHawk]

I think 2 is acceptable if the future looks like you might get 3. If you get in half the time two 4 year periods in a row, then I'm impartial to either decision. 2 more times in the next 4 year span and I'm ready to move on for sure.

Of course, there are factors like injuries or deep runs that could sway my decision.

For the record, I would take the first 2 years of Fran's tenure out of the equation and I count play in games. If you got an NIT invite after losing a play in game, I wouldn't count it.

 

[InGoodCo]

Always thought that was weird. Every site, every where, every publication, the school, sports reference, ESPN, wiki, ....literally everywhere says Iowa was in the NCAA tournament 13-14 season. I've never understood how it can be universally recognized as an NCAA tournament birth with a first round loss by everyone but our own fans... or fans of Iowa rivals who want to paint it that way.

 

[mrolympia]

75% once you get "your guys", and one of those seasons better be a 4 seed or better.

 

[PCHawk]

Always thought that was weird. Every site, every where, every publication, the school, sports reference, ESPN, wiki, ....literally everywhere says Iowa was in the NCAA tournament 13-14 season. I've never understood how it can be universally recognized as an NCAA tournament birth with a first round loss by everyone but our own fans... or fans of Iowa rivals who want to paint it that way.

Half of the 11 seeds count as births. The other half don't.

 

[smitharooney]

In Fran's first 4 years:
He would be in the zero, but other tourney appearances category under this poll 2 NITs, and 1 play in game. He will get a pass here for rebuilding from Alford and Lick years.

In Fran's 2nd 4 years he is batting 50% on NCAAs, 1 NIT, and very likely no tournament experience this year. I think this leans in the acceptable category.

My vote would be a 50% rate. I'm in the camp leaning I don't think he is going to get it done moving forward (based on the eyeball test), but the numbers is going to keep him here for a little while longer among other factors. They are hovering around acceptable.

What would your NCAA tournament acceptable numbers be for Iowa? I know some might feel the NCAA first 4 counts as an appearance, but I think that leans more on the other appearing in post season tournament side. If they win that game, then well yes, I think then they earned that NCAA tournament appearance for that year.

I only count wins . After this year he will be at 25%

 

[tksirius]

I wonder if he'll physically assault someone this year. I still can't believe he didn't get T'd up last night.

 

[99topdawg]

I still can't believe he didn't get T'd up last night.

Was kind of mad he didn't. Was ready with my Major League quote, "It's about time, it's 8-nothin' ".

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

If done right 100%!!!! But 75% is acceptable for me.

 

[DDThompson]

75%

I can give 14 reasons.

2001
2002
2003
2004

2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

2014
2015
2016

Xavier

 

[1hawkeye1]

I can't even decipher the title of this thread.

 

[DDThompson]

I only count wins . After this year he will be at 25%

Iowa had a coach in ancient history who had nine+ wins in MM in 13 seasons.

It wasn’t good enough.

If you’re old enough then I’m betting you wanted him fired.

If you’re not old enough then I’m guessing just MM wins wouldn’t be good enough for you.

 

[smitharooney]

Iowa had a coach in ancient history who had nine+ wins in MM in 13 seasons.

It wasn’t good enough.

If you’re old enough then I’m betting you wanted him fired.

If you’re not old enough then I’m guessing just MM wins wouldn’t be good enough for you.

Tom Davis had 13 tourney wins in 13 seasons . That’s 100 % even though he didn’t get a win every year. I enjoyed the DR and was sad to see him go. Tourney win percentage since ? 17 % that’s three wins the last 18 seasons and we won’t get one this year or next year. I’m now worried our program will never recover and we have become northwestern of the 80’s

 

[lightning1]

Always thought that was weird. Every site, every where, every publication, the school, sports reference, ESPN, wiki, ....literally everywhere says Iowa was in the NCAA tournament 13-14 season. I've never understood how it can be universally recognized as an NCAA tournament birth with a first round loss by everyone but our own fans... or fans of Iowa rivals who want to paint it that way.

I consider it a NCAA appearance.

 

[DDThompson]

Tom Davis had 13 tourney wins in 13 seasons . That’s 100 % even though he didn’t get a win every year. I enjoyed the DR and was sad to see him go. Tourney win percentage since ? 17 % that’s three wins the last 18 seasons and we won’t get one this year or next year. I’m now worried our program will never recover and we have become northwestern of the 80’s

ok I see what you mean.
I guess number total wins/total years is one way to count it. But no one is going to be content with 1-1 record over a period of time. No one.

I didn’t want him fired and I thought the attacks calling him lazy and can’t coach D was ridiculous. But 1-1 MM and NIT appearances became monotonous. But it was time for him to go with the lack of progress. I wasn’t sure Alford was the answer like so many were but I thought he could be.

As far as no wins this year or next year. Things could change and the team go on a big tear late season and big ten tourney I guess. I could win the lotto too.

Next year is undiscovered country so I wouldn’t be so adamant that we can’t find the promised land of one tourney win.

 

[Hawkalum2002]

I consider it a NCAA appearance.

It is, don't know why anyone wouldn't count it. We were the 34th at large team in that year (45th overall), that would always make the NCAA tournament if their was still 64 teams. Xavier and NC State at 35th and 36th might've been left out previously in certain years, but usually there were 35 at larges and 29 automatics in the "old" days.

 

[lightning1]

It is, don't know why anyone wouldn't count it. We were the 34th at large team in that year (45th overall), that would always make the NCAA tournament if their was still 64 teams. Xavier and NC State at 35th and 36th might've been left out previously in certain years, but usually there were 35 at larges and 29 automatics in the "old" days.

If it's on my bracket that I fill out, it counts. It's nothing to brag about but it counts.