It was silly to say you're automatically a good coach if you get to the B1G level when our last two coaches got here and aren't good coaches. I don't even know if it's more accurate than not with how many coaches get to this level and fail but I do know you saying in our situation is foolish.
Tyler Cook
- Thread starter Bigtenchamp
- Start date
It was silly to say you're automatically a good coach if you get to the B1G level when our last two coaches got here and aren't good coaches. I don't even know if it's more accurate than not with how many coaches get to this level and fail but I do know you saying in our situation is foolish.
LicThawk
Well-Known Member
Not using timeouts to stop huge runs by the other team EVERY GAME= bad coach
Putting in second or third string players for extended minutes= bad coach
Putting in players who shouldn't see the court because a player said the wrong thing= bad coach
Putting together offensive plays only off inbounds plays= bad coach
Not mixing up the defense for an entire half= bad coach
Giving up the most points a game in the big ten= bad coach
Putting in second or third string players for extended minutes= bad coach
Putting in players who shouldn't see the court because a player said the wrong thing= bad coach
Putting together offensive plays only off inbounds plays= bad coach
Not mixing up the defense for an entire half= bad coach
Giving up the most points a game in the big ten= bad coach
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Can you agree that the signs in the past were there? Do you think this is an aberration or a natural flow based on ability?
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
Yes, I can agree with that - I am not unreasonable. Fran has made his bed this year, and it's been mostly due to lack of the ability to adapt, change and coach. There has been plenty of signs over the years with D - his rotation - calling TO's etc. But if you look at any coach in American you are going to find flaws or things that you don't agree with or "signs". I do feel like this season is an aberration record wise. I feel like there is talent on this team, but not enough of it in the 1 and 2.
Can you at least agree that before this season, the program was showing some progress? Even with the NIT last year? I personally feel like we've been on a good path until this year. Now it's derailed.
And it's not like he's done those things just a game or two. It's pretty much his MO. It's almost like he expects different results by playing so many guys more mins. How he uses timeouts and his substitution patterns are just beyond sporadic. The kids have to be so confused on what their roles are (minus JBo, Cook and Garza. I think he has given Moss all the rope he can to succeed the kid just isn't taking advantage of it. Baer is up and down this year, Nunge doesn't know if he's going to start and play 20 plus mins one game or hardly even see the court the next. It's like Fran is just throwing darts at the wall guessing. Early in the year I can see some of that but by this point in the year come on.... Know your team
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
Progress? Yes. I was surprised at the level of success given the deficiencies. Why was it successful? Not sure. I do think the Big has been down overall during this run. It's been down for a long time. When I see ACC games I wonder how on earth Big teams can stay on the same floor.
I will stay with the premise that sooner or later this was gonna happen. Can he make another run? Yes, with a few changes. Will he ever win the Big? Probably not. Is Iowa in danger of being a bottom tier team. Yes for sure. What changes that is the Big really has become weak in the bottom 2/3. The teams that are not OSU, MSU, and Purdue this year really aren't very good. Nebby isn't that much better as much as the bottom has fallen out. PSU is probably better than they thought they were and finally got a big win. M is basically a normal average Big team and IU shouldn't have a winning records except for the fact there are just bad bad teams.
Next year won't be a lot different. If Iowa is slightly better it could show up as an average Big team and be better than the really bad ones and not really improve very much. Fans will be satisfied.
Nebby will fall off
NW will be NW and probably fall of some though at home they have an advantage as does PSU.
Indiana is probably several years away if they make a run.
IL's coach is way in over his head.
Rutgers will be Rutgers
MN is a mess.
Wisky is probably a mess and the magic ran out.
So, with some slight improvement Iowa could be a .500 team next year and not really be much better than a top bottom third team historically.
And some of the fans will rage either way.
NoBeer
Well-Known Member
Is that why we have an 11-12 man rotation? Because he refuses to tell any player they're not good enough?
They do with crooked Barta at the helm.
That's actually absolutely NOT how it works... in general. Forget basketball and internet forums. That's not how it works at all.
Last edited:
SteveGarvey1
Well-Known Member
I'd say if you looked at all the data from the whole time he's been here (in other words to be fair) he's a pretty average coach. Prior to this year I would have said he was a little above average but he gets downgraded due to this horrible season.
Probably.
The Big 10 wasn't down during Fran's run. It was the best it has been in decades.
This is what I think too. Whenever a coach starts losing some, there will ALWAYS be something to point to. Sometimes those things are legit. Sometimes it's just fans being fans.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
It's how it works when you DO ACTUALLY provide context, like I did in several posts after the initial comment.
NoBeer
Well-Known Member
I think what you did is make a statement that basically said "You don't make it to this level being a bad coach" then tried to modify it after you were proven wrong. If you would just admit that's not really a true statement and as such, not a valid defense of Fran's coaching ability then people would probably quite dog piling you. Instead you double down make a ridiculous statement that it means what you meant and everyone else is wrong.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
haha, I didn't double down? And I don't feel like anyone is dog piling on me either. We have 1 poster who took the statement and wouldn't let it go even after I backed off it. I made a statement, I backed off it... IMMEDIATELY and gave more context in what I said. There are obviously objections to the rule, but most coaches don't make it to this level without proving themselves or being a good coach. If they do, they get exposed pretty quickly. I feel like I've been pretty clear on my view and I stand behind it.
HawkGold
Well-Known Member
You mean all the Big NCAA titles since 2000?
Having one team good enough to win a title and having a really strong conference top to bottom is completely different. You would only have to play the one good team once or twice, so it's not that big of deal if your conference doesn't have a team like that.
InGoodCo
Well-Known Member
To be fair - winning the NCAA tournament is more about seeding and match-up - I often times rarely think the title winner was the best team in college basketball and certainly don't think that the NT winner comes from the best conference. Was the Big East best 2 years ago? Or the SEC any of the years FL or KY won?The B1G has fared pretty well recently in the dance - also done very well in OOC games. This season is certainly considered a down year for the conference and I think next year will be too- but there are a lot of teams that are going to be young and it will likely have an upswing soon.
