Iowa State Is A Tire Fire

[99topdawg]

One thing I don't understand, and I mean that literally, is exactly how the RPI/NET works. I get the quad 1 wins, road, home, neutral, etc.

My thing is, if a conference plays against each other all season long, you either beat each other up and get a bunch of .500 teams or get an even split of great and bad teams. At no time can that conference change from good to great, good to average, etc.

It seems that you establish yourself as great, good, average, etc. in your non-conference season, which is mostly in November and December. Are those the games that determine how you’re seeded 3 months later?

For example, how does the Big 12 get so many quad 1 teams when the bottom 8 teams have a total of 5 Q1 non-conference wins?

I went through each team/conference’s schedule for a comparison of the 2 conference. I didn’t start doing to try to make an argument for which conference is best. I just wanted to see why the Big 12 has so many teams in Q1. I also understand how parts of this comparison could be considered "bad stats" because I don't understand exactly how RPI, etc, works (is losing/winning by 20 in the road vs. #1 the same as vs. #75, or how much difference is there between the 2 even though they're both Q1 wins) .

I do understand a lot of the above without doing this, like how conference games do establish this, but I wanted to see how much difference there is between the 2 conferences and their non conference wins that seem to help establish a foundation for a conference and their teams' strength.

Here's what I came up with:

 

[ChosenChildren]

I believe he is 64. There are so many great young coaches out there.....Collins at Northwestern actually seems like a better fit to me.

 

[ChosenChildren]

Grill couldn't get along with his teammates. Very divisive. That's all I'm going to say.

They had no choice but to cut ties.

 

[Hawkfnntn]

Grill couldn't get along with his teammates. Very divisive. That's all I'm going to say.

They had no choice but to cut ties.

So ominous. You'll feel better if you spill the beans.

 

[Seth53]

I don’t know or have met the McCraffrey family, but from the few comments I have heard or read from Margaret I got the impression she was never truly happy in Iowa City.

Not unlike Lute's wife

 

[haydensly]

I believe he is 64. There are so many great young coaches out there.....Collins at Northwestern actually seems like a better fit to me.

Just to set the record straight, he is 63, will be 64 in May.

 

[HuckFinn]

What is this fascination with Fran’s age? 64 is old? You must be kidding.

 

[Dadman]

Shit. If Frans old, i may as well start cruising nursing homes.

 

[SmokeTownHawk]

Yeah but ISU made the Sweet 16 a year ago. I'm sure their fans can deal with a few tradeoffs, even a player like Grill who, from what I've read has more than a few mental/emotional issues going on. As far as Fran, I'm still of the belief that Barta, Kirk, and Fran leave around the same time.

 

[HawkGold]

I don't think age has that much pull anymore. Teams want success in a few years and Fran is young enough to get there and then some. He seems to enjoy coaching now as much as ever. And he's probably better now than 10 years ago.

I don't think Fran is as popular as some think he is, nor is he as unpopular as some would like to believe. It's kind of who he is and how he's been at Iowa. Not great, but certainly, very certainly not bad.

He wouldn't be a bad risk.

The first step for ND is to become relevant and FM can do that. Another bad hire and....

 

[NorthKCHawk]

I don't see how hiring Fran makes ND relevant. I think he would be a solid hire, but you are hiring a coach who almost definitionally is only going to make it through 4-6 recruiting cycles and who is most known for his anger issues, not tournament success. I suppose being able to pull a coach from a comparable program who has had solid success is a coup of sorts, but hiring Fran is not going to excite the fan base at ND.

Likewise, other than just wanting a new group of assholes to deal with, I fail to see how such a move benefits Fran in anyway, shape or form over where he is now. He is entrenched at a program that has reasonably good support and a hands off AD that has modest expectations, and he has kids in and coming into the program that have only known IC as their home. What is the draw to go back to a lateral or lower move school that he and his wife were at for a few years, and that will always be football first on steroids? Don't see it.

 

[HawkGold]

I don't see how hiring Fran makes ND relevant. I think he would be a solid hire, but you are hiring a coach who almost definitionally is only going to make it through 4-6 recruiting cycles and who is most known for his anger issues, not tournament success. I suppose being able to pull a coach from a comparable program who has had solid success is a coup of sorts, but hiring Fran is not going to excite the fan base at ND.

Likewise, other than just wanting a new group of assholes to deal with, I fail to see how such a move benefits Fran in anyway, shape or form over where he is now. He is entrenched at a program that has reasonably good support and a hands off AD that has modest expectations, and he has kids in and coming into the program that have only known IC as their home. What is the draw to go back to a lateral or lower move school that he and his wife were at for a few years, and that will always be football first on steroids? Don't see it.

Depends on the definition of relevant. Right now close to 500 in conference would be relevant

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I don't think I insinuated you didn't like them. I am saying that he doesn't need his kids for ND to be interested. I am saying a coach who has his level of success at turning around basketball programs and has sustained his level of success are a coveted commodity. Coaches that develop all conference players and players who are recognized on the national stage are in high demand. Coaches that have 4 star players as offspring that are also good coaches are definitely not going out of style any time soon.

I bring up the compensation because Iowa has not felt the need to pay Fran top half salary vs where his teams finish. Any time you are good at what you do and you are underpaid compared to your peers, you have a flight risk.

Patrick has 2 years of FWIW - and IMO, the whole Fishbowl thing is part of the reason I think he might just be ready to a restart.

He would also have one of his sons having his last game, and the youngest son not starting yet on the team. I don't think he'd want Jack starting to get entrenched in a team if he thought about moving later years. It would be now if he made the move, I'd think, because it would lessen the effect before Jack starts playing college ball.

In addition, how much do he and Margaret like Notre Dame and that city? Margaret played there and they both have strong ties to that university.

 

[BryceC]

ISU could not be limping into the postseason any harder. IMO they don't win another game but admittedly I thought that about this point last year.

I always say just making the tournament makes any season a success, and any additional goals you hit are just icing on the cake. Man this year is testing that.

 

[BryceC]

One thing I don't understand, and I mean that literally, is exactly how the RPI/NET works. I get the quad 1 wins, road, home, neutral, etc.

My thing is, if a conference plays against each other all season long, you either beat each other up and get a bunch of .500 teams or get an even split of great and bad teams. At no time can that conference change from good to great, good to average, etc.

It seems that you establish yourself as great, good, average, etc. in your non-conference season, which is mostly in November and December. Are those the games that determine how you’re seeded 3 months later?

For example, how does the Big 12 get so many quad 1 teams when the bottom 8 teams have a total of 5 Q1 non-conference wins?

I went through each team/conference’s schedule for a comparison of the 2 conference. I didn’t start doing to try to make an argument for which conference is best. I just wanted to see why the Big 12 has so many teams in Q1. I also understand how parts of this comparison could be considered "bad stats" because I don't understand exactly how RPI, etc, works (is losing/winning by 20 in the road vs. #1 the same as vs. #75, or how much difference is there between the 2 even though they're both Q1 wins) .

I do understand a lot of the above without doing this, like how conference games do establish this, but I wanted to see how much difference there is between the 2 conferences and their non conference wins that seem to help establish a foundation for a conference and their teams' strength.

Here's what I came up with:

View attachment 9912

For the Big 12 this year I think it's a little overrated, simply because they have good noncon wins, but mostly as a conference they have avoided bad noncon losses. Not getting blown out also helps.

The Big 12 has 1 Q4 loss and 1 Q3 loss between all 10 teams all season. That has lead itself to a situation where there just isn't a bad loss to be had because they don't have these anchor losses messing up their whole season. There are only 12 Q2 losses by all teams in the Big 12 combined between conference play and the noncon, that makes 14 Q2 or lower losses from the conference as a whole. The Big 10 has 59 Q2 or lower losses.

The Big 10 has 4 Q4 losses, and 10 Q3 losses. Those are almost all in the noncon, and those just drastically impact your NET. And when that happens, you don't get the benefit of all of your games in conference basically being Q1 games. ISU has played 18 Q1 games and 4 Q2 games. Iowa has played 12 Q1 games and 4 Q2 games. That, along with the EIU loss, is why Iowa is still ranked behind ISU in the NET even though I would agree they are a much better team right now.

 

[Grady]

One thing I don't understand, and I mean that literally, is exactly how the RPI/NET works. I get the quad 1 wins, road, home, neutral, etc.

My thing is, if a conference plays against each other all season long, you either beat each other up and get a bunch of .500 teams or get an even split of great and bad teams. At no time can that conference change from good to great, good to average, etc.

It seems that you establish yourself as great, good, average, etc. in your non-conference season, which is mostly in November and December. Are those the games that determine how you’re seeded 3 months later?

For example, how does the Big 12 get so many quad 1 teams when the bottom 8 teams have a total of 5 Q1 non-conference wins?

I went through each team/conference’s schedule for a comparison of the 2 conference. I didn’t start doing to try to make an argument for which conference is best. I just wanted to see why the Big 12 has so many teams in Q1. I also understand how parts of this comparison could be considered "bad stats" because I don't understand exactly how RPI, etc, works (is losing/winning by 20 in the road vs. #1 the same as vs. #75, or how much difference is there between the 2 even though they're both Q1 wins) .

I do understand a lot of the above without doing this, like how conference games do establish this, but I wanted to see how much difference there is between the 2 conferences and their non conference wins that seem to help establish a foundation for a conference and their teams' strength.

Here's what I came up with:

View attachment 9912

Really good questions.

 

[BryceC]

What is this fascination with Fran’s age? 64 is old? You must be kidding.

In the context of being hired as a college basketball head coach taking over a complete rebuild, yes, I think so.

 

[HuckFinn]

For the Big 12 this year I think it's a little overrated, simply because they have good noncon wins, but mostly as a conference they have avoided bad noncon losses. Not getting blown out also helps.

The Big 12 has 1 Q4 loss and 1 Q3 loss between all 10 teams all season. That has lead itself to a situation where there just isn't a bad loss to be had because they don't have these anchor losses messing up their whole season. There are only 12 Q2 losses by all teams in the Big 12 combined between conference play and the noncon, that makes 14 Q2 or lower losses from the conference as a whole. The Big 10 has 59 Q2 or lower losses.

The Big 10 has 4 Q4 losses, and 10 Q3 losses. Those are almost all in the noncon, and those just drastically impact your NET. And when that happens, you don't get the benefit of all of your games in conference basically being Q1 games. ISU has played 18 Q1 games and 4 Q2 games. Iowa has played 12 Q1 games and 4 Q2 games. That, along with the EIU loss, is why Iowa is still ranked behind ISU in the NET even though I would agree they are a much better team right now.

Thanks. Very helpful.

 

[HuckFinn]

In the context of being hired as a college basketball head coach taking over a complete rebuild, yes, I think so.

Nope

 

[BryceC]

Nope

Okay, name the last time a P5 program hired a 64 year old. TT hired Mark Adams two years ago when Beard left them in the lurch and he got promoted from within to try and maintain consistency in the program. An external hire, taking over a program that will be gutted after this year by a 64 year old would be extremely rare. I can't think of a time it's happened.