Could this team become the best team in Cyclone MBB History?
- Thread starter NazLongDoesItAgain
- Start date
99-00 set the standard there. Not sure you can accurately compare such a thing two decades apart, but I will say that if this team walks onto Houston's home court and takes that game from them, they're in the conversation.
I don’t expect anyone on this team sobbing as their coach throws in the towel in the elite 8.
I would not be surprised to see some anguish when kids have worked so hard to achieve something and then have it ripped away. Almost everyone's season ends that way (well, not Iowa this year lol, but you get the point).
"Best" can have two meanings...
(1.) Statistical profile
(2.) Discrete accomplishments that "hang in the rafters" forever
Season isn't over to determine how it stacks up on either of these.
Definitely looking good for #1 relative to what is in the Torvik and KenPom database, though.
(1.) Statistical profile
(2.) Discrete accomplishments that "hang in the rafters" forever
Season isn't over to determine how it stacks up on either of these.
Definitely looking good for #1 relative to what is in the Torvik and KenPom database, though.
Cincinnati was ranked #1 most of the year, beat ISU in Hawaii during the non con, and would have been a 1 seed but #1 draft pick Kenyon Martin broke his leg in the CUSA tournament which no doubt the committee had to of taken into account. Horrible luck, a major what if that year along with the cyclones
demoncore1031
Well-Known Member
Talent wise they are not a top 10 ISU team, but damn they are tough and they win games. A lot of fun to watch this year.
Eh, I think we are selling some of these players short on their talent. Some people need to be reminded that we have had 2 players get triple doubles this year. This team depth wise is probably one of the most talented teams we've ever had.
Comparing this team to 99-00 team is premature. We can revisit this after Houston game
Agree for sure ISU's Big 12 00-01 compared to 99-00 was weaker (and the overall SOS).
B12 performed HORRIBLY in the '01 tournament ... (2) ISU, (4) OU and (6) Texas bounced in R64. (4) KU was only team to advance to Sweet 16 ... and it's possible each of those teams was seeded a line too high anyway.
demoncore1031
Well-Known Member
What’s most impressive about out current team is their depth (as mentioned) and their consistent defense and grit. I’ve been most impressed by their road win at TCU without Lipsey and the close loss at Baylor in a game where they objectively played poorly. On the other hand, playing at BYU showed they can be beat (handily) by a good offensive team shooting well from deep.
There are still a lot of conference games left, with a lot to prove for this team.
If they somehow get through the rest of the season with only 1 loss, I’d put them a class above any other ISU team besides 99-00. If 2 losses, I’d say they’re easily in the convo as a top 3 team all time, with a chance to shine and rise the ladder with a post season run. If 3 losses or more, they are still a top 5-10 team and very good by historical standards, but not top 5 (Hoibergs last 2 years coaching, tinsley years, 95-96, and basically all the Niang/morris years were all as good or better)
There are still a lot of conference games left, with a lot to prove for this team.
If they somehow get through the rest of the season with only 1 loss, I’d put them a class above any other ISU team besides 99-00. If 2 losses, I’d say they’re easily in the convo as a top 3 team all time, with a chance to shine and rise the ladder with a post season run. If 3 losses or more, they are still a top 5-10 team and very good by historical standards, but not top 5 (Hoibergs last 2 years coaching, tinsley years, 95-96, and basically all the Niang/morris years were all as good or better)
Guards too. Curtis Jones coming off the bench to at times make things worse for the opponent and even Pav being a potential problem are great to have.
It's not only depth, but it's depth that compliments one another.
99-2000 gets labeled as having no depth but Brandon Hawkins, Shirley (when healthy) and Rancik saw good minutes and Shirley got some time in the NBA.
There was 'depth' in the starting guards with Tinsley, Horton, and Nurse being so interchangeable with the handle and ability to get to the hoop.
96/97 as well.
Metrics wise I think the team will be in the trends that go along with a team making deep runs in the tournament but that also means nothing once that gets here.
Fizer's hypothetical senior year is a great what-if for ISU. I don't fault him for leaving early, his stock had nowhere to go but down, but gosh how good would that team have been?
With Fizer, Horton, and Tinsley all spacing the floor, I'm not sure Jake Sullivan would have missed a three all year.
I'll also never understand why NBA teams insisted on trying to play Marcus at small forward. ISU listed him at 6'8" which was probably an exaggeration in all but the tallest and thickest of basketball shoes, but the guy was an absolute unit on the block. He was a great athlete for his size/strength but was still way too slow to guard or drive on NBA small forwards. Everyone at the time wanted their "power forward" to be Tim Duncan- and Kevin Garnett-sized.
With Fizer, Horton, and Tinsley all spacing the floor, I'm not sure Jake Sullivan would have missed a three all year.
I'll also never understand why NBA teams insisted on trying to play Marcus at small forward. ISU listed him at 6'8" which was probably an exaggeration in all but the tallest and thickest of basketball shoes, but the guy was an absolute unit on the block. He was a great athlete for his size/strength but was still way too slow to guard or drive on NBA small forwards. Everyone at the time wanted their "power forward" to be Tim Duncan- and Kevin Garnett-sized.
Last edited: