Tyler Cook

InGoodCo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

InGoodCo 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.
Click to expand...
Maybe Fran is being exposed. To the point, many fans have pointed out that many of the problems this year are not new, they are systemic.
  1. Recruiting failures. Fran has recruited OK overall but he has missed on some key needs and sometimes seems to fall back on a "best available" type of mentality.
  2. Roster management. Once the team is assembled Fran has had this habit of playing WAY to large of a rotation. Again this isn't new. Maybe it failed to bite us in the butt in past years and that validated a false premise in Fran's mind. If it really is a problem it also makes me wonder what might have been 2 and 3 years ago had we had a tighter rotation.
  3. Defense. Our defense has been mediocre to bad for the entirety of Fran's tenure.
  4. Game day management. It's almost comical how closely this issue seems to mirror our football program where things like clock management (more stopping runs and controlling pace in basketball) etc. seem to just be a foreign concept.
My point is, maybe these flaws aren't death sentences but it might also mean Fran is "on the bubble" of being a Big Ten caliber coach. Nothing is really black and white so there isn't a clear Big Ten caliber and clear not Big Ten caliber. Maybe Fran is on the bubble.
 
Last edited:
NoBeer said:
Fair enough.

Maybe Fran is being exposed. To the point, many fans have pointed out that many of the problems this year are not new, they are systemic.

  1. Recruiting failures. Fran has recruited OK overall but he has missed on some key needs and sometimes seems to fall back on a "best available" type of mentality.
  2. Roster management. Once the team is assembled Fran has had this habit of playing WAY to large of a rotation. Again this isn't new. Maybe it failed to bite us in the butt in past years and that validated a false premise in Fran's mind. If it really is a problem it also makes me wonder what might have been 2 and 3 years ago had we had a tighter rotation.
  3. Defense. Our defense has been mediocre to bad for the entirety of Fran's tenure.
  4. Game day management. It's almost comical how closely this issue seems to mirror our football program where things like clock management (time outs in general) etc. seem to just be a foreign concept.
My point is, maybe these flaws aren't death sentences but it might also mean Fran is "on the bubble" of being a Big Ten caliber coach. Nothing is really black and white so there isn't a clear Big Ten caliber and clear not Big Ten caliber. Maybe Fran is on the bubble.
Click to expand...

Agree and wouldn't dispute anything you said. Before this season, I thought Fran was average to a little bit above average because I thought he had done a nice job revitalizing the Iowa program. Now this season happens and it most certainly has cast a shadow of doubt on my assessment. He either needs to have a complete turn around next season or needs to be shown the door.
 
PCHawk said:
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.
Click to expand...

Playing good teams makes you good. Playing bad teams doesn't help much. The Big hasn't been that strong top to bottom. Really bad now. With 5 P5 and add in the Big East, if you were good, there would at least be 1 or 2 Championships.
 
InGoodCo said:
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.
Click to expand...

The SEC is always under rated. That said since 2000, random selection would give 1 or 2 champions. The more good teams you play the better you are. OOC games are a bit like the match ups you suggest. Few are played on an opponents home turf.

This year I have a hard time seeing any Bigs get through the Sweet 16. PSU with the right match ups may have the inside and guard play to do that.
 
NoBeer said:
Fair enough.

Maybe Fran is being exposed. To the point, many fans have pointed out that many of the problems this year are not new, they are systemic.
  1. Recruiting failures. Fran has recruited OK overall but he has missed on some key needs and sometimes seems to fall back on a "best available" type of mentality.
  2. Roster management. Once the team is assembled Fran has had this habit of playing WAY to large of a rotation. Again this isn't new. Maybe it failed to bite us in the butt in past years and that validated a false premise in Fran's mind. If it really is a problem it also makes me wonder what might have been 2 and 3 years ago had we had a tighter rotation.
  3. Defense. Our defense has been mediocre to bad for the entirety of Fran's tenure.
  4. Game day management. It's almost comical how closely this issue seems to mirror our football program where things like clock management (more stopping runs and controlling pace in basketball) etc. seem to just be a foreign concept.
My point is, maybe these flaws aren't death sentences but it might also mean Fran is "on the bubble" of being a Big Ten caliber coach. Nothing is really black and white so there isn't a clear Big Ten caliber and clear not Big Ten caliber. Maybe Fran is on the bubble.
Click to expand...

Good post. I thought before this year, Fran was a sure fire Big 10 caliber coach. After this year, he is probably more of a bubble type coach. If after next year, I still think he's a bubble type coach (or worse) he needs to go. If he puts together a solid year and climbs the bubble chart, I'd say he's fine to stay. I also agree that the big rotations could have very well cost us some games in previous years.
 
HawkGold said:
Playing good teams makes you good. Playing bad teams doesn't help much. The Big hasn't been that strong top to bottom. Really bad now. With 5 P5 and add in the Big East, if you were good, there would at least be 1 or 2 Championships.
Click to expand...

The Big 10 was considered the best or second best conference for a few years straight while Fran was doing good. He literally had his best run while the conference was at its best in decades. Your point about not winning a championship was kinda dumb.
 
PCHawk said:
The Big 10 was considered the best or second best conference for a few years straight while Fran was doing good. He literally had his best run while the conference was at its best in decades. Your point about not winning a championship was kinda dumb.
Click to expand...
We are all kind of dumb for being here. Show me the championships. Zero since 2000. Zero.
 
HawkGold said:
We are all kind of dumb for being here. Show me the championships. Zero since 2000. Zero.
Click to expand...

So by your logic, a conference could have the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th best teams in the nation, and not be considered a strong conference because they didn't have the best team?
 
PCHawk said:
So by your logic, a conference could have the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th best teams in the nation, and not be considered a strong conference because they didn't have the best team?
Click to expand...

What would your logic be if the ACC would be as the Big?
 
HawkGold said:
We are all kind of dumb for being here. Show me the championships. Zero since 2000. Zero.
Click to expand...

How about Final 4 appearances? Since 2000 (through 2017), here's the Final 4 participants by conference:

ACC = 15
B1G = 14
Big East = 10
SEC = 10
Other = 10 (Conference USA, Horizon, etc.)
Big 12 = 8
Pac 12 = 5
 
Robowe said:
How about Final 4 appearances? Since 2000 (through 2017), here's the Final 4 participants by conference:

ACC = 15
B1G = 14
Big East = 10
SEC = 10
Other = 10 (Conference USA, Horizon, etc.)
Big 12 = 8
Pac 12 = 5
Click to expand...

It would still show up in championships. They just aren't there. You can't slice the situation any other way.

None of this changes the Hawkeye situation. Next year may be better or it may be worse. He may get Iowa back to finishing in a gigantic way tie for 3rd again at some point. Iowa has a team/coach that can't block out or play defense and they aren't very good in the half court. That coach is a raving lunatic on the sideline at times and has the worst reputation of Big coaches for court side demeanor.
 
Last edited:
HawkGold said:
It would still show up in championships. They just aren't there. You can't slice the situation any other way.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Final 4 perspective is a much different slice. :) It shows the point that was being made ... the B1G conference has been very competitive since 2000. Just because the teams haven't won the last game of the season, doesn't mean the B1G has not been good. Using Final 4 appearances, I would say only the ACC has been better than the B1G and that is by one appearance. From a Power 5 perspective, the B1G conference is head and shoulders above the Pac 12 and Big 12, and slightly better than the SEC (which has been Kentucky a lot of the time).
 
Robowe said:
Actually, the Final 4 perspective is a much different slice. :) It shows the point that was being made ... the B1G conference has been very competitive since 2000. Just because the teams haven't won the last game of the season, doesn't mean the B1G has not been good. Using Final 4 appearances, I would say only the ACC has been better than the B1G and that is by one appearance. From a Power 5 perspective, the B1G conference is head and shoulders above the Pac 12 and Big 12, and slightly better than the SEC (which has been Kentucky a lot of the time).
Click to expand...
Final 4 appearances are way better proof than national championships. But it is still a stat that shows how top heavy a conference is each year and has nothing to do with how tough a conference is from top to bottom. Gold thinks there is one good conference per year. The conference that the national champion happens to be a member of.

Also once again, how the conference did from 2000 to now has nothing to do with my point on how good the conference was in 2012-2015.
 
I listened to the latest Hawkeye Report podcast with Tom Kakert and Rick Brown this morning which was really good with most of it talking about Chris Street. After they got done talking they mentioned potentially a starter transferring after this year and it sounds like they were referring to Cook. That would really suck.
 
I heard something mentioned about a starter that looks like he's not all here. At first I wondered who else it could be other than Cook (even tho he looks all here to me) then I realized Moss. Moss fits that bill 1000 times more than Cook does.
 
Hawk5656 said:
If you listen to the podcast it's pretty obvious they're talking about Cook and said the player "hasn't had both feet in all year". Tom is pretty connected and so is Rick.
Click to expand...

Yea that's the quote. I would say that quote fits Moss to a tee. But that could also just be Moss's personality too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top