In this thread we name all the coaches BARTA hired who turned out great

PCHawk said:
It's just funny how at the time, everyone understood why we sucked Fran's first year. Everyone agreed that that first year was on Lick. But now in year 8, people want to use that first year for stats to show why Fran sucked. "His Big 10 record is below .500". Well of course it is since he was so bad his first year. "He is 3 for 8 on making the tourney". That includes his first year where no coach in the world could have gotten them in, his second year where most coaches couldn't have gotten them in, and a year that hasn't even finished yet.

I would say there is good enough evidence now to suggest Fran will get us into the tourney pretty much half of the time, at worst. It's still possible he will be better than that. But that's worst case scenario with him. This 3 out of 8 stat is garbage to even use right now.
Click to expand...

Funny, when thinking about Fran being in Year 8, I'm pleasantly surprised. I assumed he wouldn't stay beyond 5 years, especially if he got us to the NCAAs. His history of longevity, when hired, indicated a guy who wasn't a long-termer.
 
Hawk5656 said:
This sounds like you making an excuse for me. I wonder what Dixon had to sell at TCU when he got there?

It still doesn't explain the crap we're watching now, even though, you could technically look at it for what it was. This years Jr and Sr. classes were recruited to Iowa when all Fran had to sell was hope.
Click to expand...

<<I wonder what Dixon had to sell at TCU when he got there?>>

I wonder why that is even being mentioned...
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
Funny, when thinking about Fran being in Year 8, I'm pleasantly surprised. I assumed he wouldn't stay beyond 5 years, especially if he got us to the NCAAs. His history of longevity, when hired, indicated a guy who wasn't a long-termer.
Click to expand...

He had boys in high school he could get onto a D1 P5 team and coach them. Pretty strong motivation.
 
HawkGold said:
He had boys in high school he could get onto a D1 P5 team and coach them. Pretty strong motivation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but he could get them in just about anywhere he coached. But that's a good point, moving on after five years would have been pretty disruptive. Not to mention, U of I was a pretty good place to be when Patrick got sick.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
Yeah, but he could get them in just about anywhere he coached. But that's a good point, moving on after five years would have been pretty disruptive. Not to mention, U of I was a pretty good place to be when Patrick got sick.
Click to expand...

Iowa is a bit more lenient. Honestly, what P5 teams ABOVE Iowa would have wanted him?

Temper
No really killer year.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
<<I wonder what Dixon had to sell at TCU when he got there?>>

I wonder why that is even being mentioned...
Click to expand...

Because a poster was making excuses for Fran's 5th and 6th recruiting classes saying all he had to sell was hope which is stupid on so many levels.
 
hawkeyebob62 said:
Yeah, but he could get them in just about anywhere he coached. But that's a good point, moving on after five years would have been pretty disruptive. Not to mention, U of I was a pretty good place to be when Patrick got sick.
Click to expand...

Also, just looking at Big Teams. Would his kids have been stars outside of Iowa City?

Minn? Maybe Not
Purdue - Yes
Lansing - Maybe not
PSU? Yes
NW? Maybe....maybe not
Champaign? Other players equal
Bloomington? Don't know
Columbus? Don't know
Michigan? Maybe not
Lincoln? Yes
Maryland? Maybe not
Madison? Yes
He had a perfect set up here.

SEC? Better chance of landing a decent gig for his kdis
Pac 10? Depends
ACC, not as likely
Big 12? KU? Kids star, but they don't need someone for a long time
OK? Maybe when they hired last
Baylor? Not a fit


I think you get where I'm going. He had the gig he wanted. The way his kids shoot, I'd say mom has a big impact and she wanted them to shine and play at a meaningful school.

Iowa is a good fit for that.
 
Im ok with not recognizing play in games as making the tournament as long as there is a disclaimer that says it's harder to make the tournament now than it was when the field was 64.

Also the losers of play in games get to play in the NIT since they aren't in the NCAA tournament.
 
InGoodCo said:
He can't win with Iowa fans, it's a pretty tough gig. He now doesn't get credit for Fran because of 1 bad year that isn't even finished yet. Iowa fans want Fran gone now after 1 step back, and they turned on him in a heart beat. Like the second they could turn on him they have. So, Gary's a giant goof because he doesn't have a knee jerk reaction to Iowa's misfortunes this season and doesn't blow things up.

Fran was 34-20 in B1G play the last 3 years. That's good.

I get it that hes 1-5 RIGHT NOW

but... Mr. Davis was 4-14 in his fourth season and 5-13 in his eighth.
Click to expand...

Dude don't go spoiling negative rants with your facts, your figures, your truths and your postulates!
 
PCHawk said:
Im ok with not recognizing play in games as making the tournament as long as there is a disclaimer that says it's harder to make the tournament now than it was when the field was 64.

Also the losers of play in games get to play in the NIT since they aren't in the NCAA tournament.
Click to expand...

I feel like you've been drunk the last couple of days or something because most of your posts lately don't even make sense.
 
Hawk5656 said:
I feel like you've been drunk the last couple of days or something because most of your posts lately don't even make sense.
Click to expand...

Which part doesn't make sense? If you don't count play in games, there are less at large selections that make it in without having to win a game. For instance, the year we were in a play in game we might have made the field of 64. But since it's 68 now, we had to play a game against a team that wouldn't have made the field of 64 for the right to get in. That means it's harder to get in now.

If it's the second part that confused you. It means if the loser of the play in game doesn't get credit for making the NCAA tournament, they should get to be a 1 seed in the NIT. It's kinda BS that the "first 2 teams out" don't even get to play in the NIT.

One last thing. They need to change the "first 4 out" term that we had last year to "first 4 out after the first 2 out" since technically the losers of the play in games are the first 2 out.
 
Ok one more thing. They need to quit saying you get an automatic bid if you win your conference tournament since that's not true anymore.
 
PCHawk said:
Which part doesn't make sense? If you don't count play in games, there are less at large selections that make it in without having to win a game. For instance, the year we were in a play in game we might have made the field of 64. But since it's 68 now, we had to play a game against a team that wouldn't have made the field of 64 for the right to get in. That means it's harder to get in now.

If it's the second part that confused you. It means if the loser of the play in game doesn't get credit for making the NCAA tournament, they should get to be a 1 seed in the NIT. It's kinda BS that the "first 2 teams out" don't even get to play in the NIT.

One last thing. They need to change the "first 4 out" term that we had last year to "first 4 out after the first 2 out" since technically the losers of the play in games are the first 2 out.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's harder to get in with a larger field because teams that would have no chance at getting in the field of 64 before now have an opportunity to play their way in.
 
Hawk5656 said:
I don't think it's harder to get in with a larger field because teams that would have no chance at getting in the field of 64 before now have an opportunity to play their way in.
Click to expand...

Good point. The problem is, it's easier for some and harder for others. If we would have been one of the teams that still got in that one year, then we could have said we've been to another tournament. We wouldn't have had to play another game to get in. So 2 11 seeds got screwed by the expansion and 2 got helped out by it.

I feel really bad for the teams that win their conference and celebrate that they got an automatic bid, only to find out they aren't in for sure. That's gotta be a real kick in the nuts that they were lied to.
 
Look at it this way. There used to be four 11 seeds that got in for sure. Now there are only two. This is too confusing. Too bad people didn't just all agree that if you get your name called on selection Sunday, you get credit for being in.

I wonder how many years after the last expansion it took for everyone to agree that people who got eliminated in the round of 64 still made the tourney?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top