See, the thing is, catnuts' reported stats/opinions should ALWAYS be taken with a huge grain of salt, given his propensity for, um, less than accurate remembrance. On the other hand, I have met him and can vouch for the height and general weight amount. So, I'm torn, catnuts might be right??? in this instance?
Maybe. Garza would certainly be in the best position to beat that record than anyone else in the 30 years since Marble left (and ugh, that really hurt to type). BUT, assuming JBo is healthy, it may be a situation where Iowa has enough other scoring options that Garza's production drops "precipitously" to "only" 13-14 ppg and he comes up short of the record. And if Garza's average over the next 6 games (assuming no others) is "only" 22, he then would need to average 17.5 over the next season to break Marble's record.
My point isn't that it is impossible, just that a lot has to go just right for Garza to be able to do so, and calling it "likely" seems premature. Kinda like saying he is a "lock" for the NBA first round or something. I think we should just enjoy the ride and the superlative performance that Garza is putting up this year.
And if he doesn't win the Wooden award, we riot!
I think he went into the tattoo parlor and just said, “Give me the Ben Affleck.”
Don't disagree with any of this. Unfortunately, as things stand now (and have for the past decade), both of PSU and Wisconsin are assumed Ls until we show that we can actually beat them.
I think it's a case where what is good for the specific individual (player) is bad for the general population (all the players). It is unquestionably a good for the player getting the under-the-table-money, but probably hinders reforms to the sport that would benefit all athletes overall
Fran's predecessors: 11 seasons, total. 2 BTT titles, 3 NCAA tourney appearances.
KSU pre-Snyder: 77 years of playing football, 18 winning seasons, only 3 of which had been in the 50 years prior to Snyder's arrival; 1 Bowl appearance, 1 Big 6/8/12 title, in 1934; 1 bowl game appearance in entire history; 0 appearances in final AP poll; attendance figures roughly equal to that of Iowa bball under Lick (I actually have no idea if this is true, but it's not far off in spirit); was a program where reaching the level of late 80s Temple football would be an unqualified "success".
Iowa under Fran: 10 seasons (almost), highest finish in conference 5th (based on BTT seeding, due to ties); 0 titles; 5 NCAA tourney appearances (assuming bid this year).
KSU under Snyder (first go around): 11 winning seasons out of 17; 4 division titles, 1 conference title; 11 bowl game apperances; 10 appearances in final AP poll.
@Yeah, those accomplishments are roughly [email protected]
Fran has been a successful coach. But he's basically returned Iowa to its status quo ante. In other words, just a little better than what [REDACTED] had done, but without all of the assholeishness. Hardly the world's most transformative effort though.
Hmm I’m not much for rooting for UMD or PSU
Why not? It's not like they're conference rivals like the others
What fucking Bag Man downvoted this comment?
What McCaffery has accomplished in reinvigorating the program is nearing a Bill Snyder-level of reclamation
This is, quite frankly, fucking absurd. And it’s this sort of hyperbole that makes it nearly impossible to discuss Fran’s performance and his strengths and weaknesses.
I think that there is a strain of recency bias that ascribes way too much structural impact and import to Lick
Actually, I do have a problem with the money coming from Bag Men. I believe the players should be paid. I also believe that should be done in an open and transparent process
We are way, WAY, past the point that Fran should be evaluated with an eye to anything other than his own merits and performance as a coach. Constantly falling back to "BUT LICK WAS SO BAD!!!" is pointless when Fran has been here 3x+ the length of Lick's entire tenure, a tenure that ended when the Class of 2020 recruits were in third grade. Quite succinctly, Lick was before the effective life memory of these kids. And if things are still so bad from when Lick was here, then that's really an indictment of Fran that he hasn't been able to change things with a decade of opportunity.
And let me be clear, I in no way believe things are in bad shape. And I do not think Fran should be fired or in any threat to be. My position is this: the evaluation of Fran's tenure is long past the point that he should be judged on his own accomplishments. I am of the further opinion that the goals of the program should be to make the NCAA tournament 3 out of every 5 years, with hopefully a Sweet 16 in one of those 3 appearances. One of the most common refrains from Frans Fans is that he is the guy that will take the program to the "next step".
Fran is very close to that 3/5 tourney appearances ratio if you grant him a mulligan for his first year (which I think is more than justified). Obviously, he has not yet made a Sweet 16. At the end of last year, I thought that if Fran was going to make a Sweet 16, this year and next year would be his best chances to do it. This was made assuming that Cook was leaving, but before we learned about Moss and JBo's injury, to say nothing about losing Nunge again PMac at the start of this season. Obviously, this significantly changes the calculus for the season before it even began. That we are close to being a lock for the tournament at this point is nothing short of remarkable given the off-season woes and the DePaul game to start things off.
I think what Fran has done this season is the best coaching he has done his entire tenure at Iowa, and it is a testament to his ability. One of the most common refrains from Frans Fans is that he is the guy that will take the program to the "next step". What I am positing, however, is that if we do not do that next year, it is not going to happen. And that may be fine, not making a Sweet 16, but being a tourney participant 60% of the time is a perfectly cromulent standard. I am really agnostic on whether we should expect more than that, and I certainly won't begrudge fans who find that sufficient. But we should at least try to find a standard by which we measure Fran, instead of simply heaping all credit on him when things go well while retreating to "Well, that's because Lick was so bad" when things do not.
That’s because they’re already getting paid in Columbus
Except that in the case of Wisconsin, it's something that actually happened.
Fran has now been here more than 3x Lick’s entire tenure. I think some of us believe the Lick tenure shouldn’t be the get out of jail free card that it’s used as after all this time.
What is this, a Wisconsin new student guide book?
Road wins are hard to come by, this is a good one
The wins against Wisconsin and Illinois proved this team had a different vibe. Those two wins can clearly be linked to a different mental gear
So did the wins vs. OSU, Michigan, and at Rutgers last year.
This year can still be a great success for Fran and the boys. And after all the attrition coming into the year (and in-season), just making the NCAA tournament would make this year a "success". On the other hand, there is an awful of whistling past the grave going on by people who seemingly don't want to admit there are other issues as well, a steadfast refusal to ever see the forest for the trees.
Our Five Year Plans seem to be as effective as the Soviet Union's
I think it's definitely a down year over all. Because I'd say the B1G falls off a cliff somewhere around the PSU/MSU line (depending entirely on whether MSU's slide continues). Because no one below that has any realistic chance of winning the conference or being a major factor in the NCAA tournament.
I agree 100%, though, that the perception of the B1G is such that we do get a benefit from that which will help Iowa out. But that can cut against us if we do go on a pronounced fade (say, 2-4 to end the season, first game loss in the BTT). Because then it will look more like Iowa feasted on early season teams, but coundn't stand toe-to-toe with people once the games started to "matter".
mainly because I think this team has a different mental makeup than past teams.
JFC, this is the one that really sets me off. Because it is just so willfully blind to even the most recent history. Seriously. Just go back to the post-game threads here and at BHGP last season when we were in the midst of a five-game win streak in late January. Just as people are now, people were tripping over their dicks to declare definitively that the 2018/19 team had a different, stronger mental makeup so it totes wouldn't have a fade over the end of the season because they were just. so. mentally. resilient. Except, they weren't. And the "proof" that they were was the fact that they beat a bunch of teams they were supposed to. Oh, and we had lost Pemsl, so that was a clear blow to the team that we had overcome!
It's not that this year's team is not or cannot be of a different mental makeup than prior years. It's that "mental toughness" is like "team chemistry" in that its alleged presence can be "seen" in every win, as well as explain those victories, yet can predict nothing. And if the team goes on a slide, well then it's obvious because they weren't mentally tough enough or had "bad team chemistry". Maybe we wait until the test is over to see how they respond before declaring that it is an absolute fact?
They play in the best conference in college basketball.
This also seems like another "excuse" we trot out every February to hand-wave away losses. And I'm not sure how realistic it is. Right now, the B1G seems like a mess, with no elite team, but a whole lot of mush in the middle such that everyone can win at home, but no one wins on the road. That may well be enough for Iowa to make the tournament - and I would agree that simply making the tournament this season after everything that went wrong in the off-season with injuries would be a success - but I'm not sure that is owing to the fact that the conference is just. so. hard.
This is a weird year in college basketball as the mediocre middle is wide and deep across the country.
Iowa will have a good defense in 2 years.
Haven't we been saying this for 5 years now?
I'm glad you got better, though