Coach Prohm Gets Extension
- Thread starter ZB4CY
- Start date
I am responding to your claim that things have gone downhill since we lost to UAB, which is nonsense.
Prohm's results are equivalent to Hoiberg's results.
- they each have 2 Big 12 tourney titles
- they each have 1 Sweet 16
- they each have been bounced from NCAA round 1 once
- they each missed the NCAA tourney once
- Hoiberg has 1 more 2nd round NCAA than Prohm, but he coached for 1 more year too
- they each have 3 top 12 kenpom offensive efficiency teams
- Prohm has 2 top 50 kenpom defensive efficiency teams; Hoiberg zero
Prohm's results are equivalent to Hoiberg's results.
- they each have 2 Big 12 tourney titles
- they each have 1 Sweet 16
- they each have been bounced from NCAA round 1 once
- they each missed the NCAA tourney once
- Hoiberg has 1 more 2nd round NCAA than Prohm, but he coached for 1 more year too
- they each have 3 top 12 kenpom offensive efficiency teams
- Prohm has 2 top 50 kenpom defensive efficiency teams; Hoiberg zero
Last edited:
Another perspective is this isn’t the Iowa State of the 1980’s.
Orr’s teams would have been meltdown worthy now, but back then it fostered new excitement into ISU athletics.
Were you equally critical of Hoiberg's "ho-hum results" with NBA talent like Monte, Niang, BDJ, Naz, Royce White, as well as Kane, Thomas, Hogue, and Ejim?
Yeah but he inherited this loaded team so he shouldn't get credit for it
That picture just brought back nightmares I had thought suppressed...
A post like this deserves an applause emoji.
Steve was able to run on auto pilot for two years and get immense credit for doing so. This contract extension was too soon. Next year should have been the year of analysis and reflection on his body of work. He proved he could put together his own team this year. Which is good but hardly 5 yr extension worthy.
I do not get where people want to say our offense was "bad" last year.
It has its inconsistencies and lulls, yes, but every team in the country has that. Yes, Talen would take some bad shots, but I thought Prohm was pretty smart about benching "bad Talen" quickly while riding the hot shooting hand on any given night.
It ranked only behind Niang's senior year and the Clyburn year for adjusted offensive efficiency on Barttorvik, which makes it the third best of the 7/8 run we have going.
We like to talk about what did not work with the offense, but much more did work...
-- Nick was a good college PG, generally made good decisions, and rarely turned it over
-- Tyrese kept the ball moving and shot 43.4% from three (41.4% in the Big 12), and he actually had a A:T rivalry Morris' career mark as a freshman as was not far behind Nick in assists
-- Shayok had the quietest 20+ points nights I have ever seen, and shot 38.6% from three
-- Wigginton, once he got rolling, was really good, and shot 39.0% from three
-- Talen could be hit-or-miss, but when he was on, he was filling it up really quickly
-- We did not run much, but when we did, we were really efficient about finishing
-- Jacobson massively increased his offensive output compared to his days at Nebraska, and "good Lard" could be useful on the offensive boards and scoring himself
-- we were not an elite team at drawing fouls, but we were better at it than some of the Hoiberg jump shooting teams, and we converted free throws at an okay rate
-- overall, while it stalled at times, the "probe-and-kick" offense that we ran mostly worked, even in the half-court, and it worked well when were able to get into breaks
-- I think people under-appreciate how good defenses were in the Big 12 this season... putting up decent offensive numbers on TTU and KSU was not a small deal, few did
I would like to see more speed next year, but it is hard to argue with a #10 ranking.
It had its problems, but there was a lot more good there than bad if the computers still ended up ranking the thing in the Top 15 or the Top 10 nationally by season end.
Last edited:
Prohm is a great coach and a better person, is is a tremendous ambassador for our university. we had an up and down season this year but with Lindell and and Lard missing extensive time this year I was expecting a major let down, we made it back to the Dance, won and Conference title and had a real chance at a regular season title. This was a very successful year, and although there were some "what could have been" moments, we should all be proud of the way Prohm worked with our men and brought them back together. Prohm is focused on winning games, but it's clear his most important mission is building men, this contract extension is well warranted and I hope it puts him top 4 in the league in pay.
@FinalFourCy
You gave me an "optimistic" above, which I interpret as a critique.
How are the computer efficiency ratings wrong about the relatively high quality of the offense (roughly 10-15th nationally depending on the site) from this past season?
I know you know how that stuff works. What is your reasoning/critique?
You gave me an "optimistic" above, which I interpret as a critique.
How are the computer efficiency ratings wrong about the relatively high quality of the offense (roughly 10-15th nationally depending on the site) from this past season?
I know you know how that stuff works. What is your reasoning/critique?
I didn’t disagree, but it’s one of the more optimistic rational interpretations imo.
First, we agree the “general offense” isn’t a big concern. The “general defense” is a little more questionable. The situational basketball could use some improvement, which gets lost in these metrics. Second, any thoughts are in the context of a high bar or aspirations for the program. Nothing is of concern in the context of competing for the tournament when we have a talented roster.
We’ve gone through this before, but I don’t put as much faith in continuum, PPP based metrics in a game of discrete outcomes. It’s usually a great estimate of the unquantifiable truth, certainly the best we currently have, but every year there are a few teams in which the functional quality diverges from the computer efficiency ratings.
Last edited:
Get this "eye test" malarkey out of here, Grandpa.
Reminds me of this scene, in the first 45 seconds...
Brat Pitt -- "Can he hit?"
Scout #1 -- "He's got a beautiful swing, right?"
Scout #2 -- "The ball explodes off his bat."
Scout #3 -- "He throws the club head at the ball, and when he connects, he drives it, it pops off the bat, you can hear it all over the ballpark."
Scout #4 -- "Lot of pop coming off the bat."
Brad Pitt -- "If he is a good hitter, why doesn't he hit good?"
If this offense was not so great, then why did it play so well?
W/L records are eye tests now? Get out of here, entry level analyst.
No one said it was bad. You like to wax poetic of people viewing things as binary and polarizing anything. Well, you need to listen to your own pleas if you interpreted what I posted as suggesting the offense was bad, or feel the need to resort to such a straw man.
Although I think it was as good, why are you sure it was good without using efficiency metric or fallacies? At least try to be an associate level DC guy!
Oh come on now, I know you are smarter than that and these sophomoric insults.
Everybody knows the W-L records from this season. I bet we all remember at this point, and they are easy enough to look up. The topic at hand was the relative quality of the offense this past season, which I stand by was very, very good.
How do I know this? I looked at the numbers. They tell a more objective tale. I more than admit it had its problems above (e.g., periods of stagnation, Horton-Tucker chucking up bad shots and not always being benched for it, etc.), but it was excellent overall.
Plenty of people on here have said it was bad plenty of times throughout the season. Just taking a look back now that we are done and can do some retrospective.
I do not know why you are so concerned about me fighting strawmen when, (1.) you do not hold the view the offense was "bad," and (2.) "bad" is a relative term. I thought it was excellent, one of the best dozen or so in the nation, which you seem to think is rating it too highly. There is plenty of room for disagreement there without strawmen. Fighting between "good" and "bad" can more practically mean between "excellent" and "very good," which is where we are.
Plus, I find it funny you say I am "waxing poetic," when I cannot think of anything that I have written on this website that comes anywhere near to this whopper...
"Unquantifiable truth?" Really? That is the argument you are going for here? Something that sounds like it came from a bad essay in a PHIL 101 class?
Put more bluntly -- how is your subjective judgement of team quality different than an eye test? You look at it and see something the computers do not see?
Last edited:
Just Win Baby .... Al Davis.....
Nothing is black-and-white, except for winning and losing, and maybe that’s why people gravitate to that so much .... Steve Nash.....
#NeedMoreWinsIn20
Nothing is black-and-white, except for winning and losing, and maybe that’s why people gravitate to that so much .... Steve Nash.....
#NeedMoreWinsIn20
Way to manipulate statistics to make a point which is not valid.
You have to consider the situation that these two coaches walked into. Before Johnny got to ISU, hoops was terrible. You could show up 15 min before any game and buy a ticket anywhere in the arena. Johnny established the culture and brought some Magic to Hilton. His teams made it an arena that opponents no longer looked forward to visiting.
I can tell you from being in the arena for those seasons, Johnny made basketball exciting for the fans. Even when they lost it was still very entertaining basketball and when they did win it was cause for euphoria.
When CSP took over he was handed a loaded roster with Sweet 16 talent. His job was to continue to build on the foundation which was already laid.
I think the jury is still out on his legacy. We don't yet know if he can improve on what Fred had built. He deserves more time and it looks like he will get it.
To compare the two coaches fairly you should also look at their records before arriving at ISU. CSP did very well at Murray State and should be recognized as such. Johnny was quite successful at Michigan, a much higher profile program than Murray State or ISU. What Johnny did was turn around a program which had been horrible for decades, much like CMC is doing for the football team. That is worthy of a great deal of respect. CSP was obviously a lot younger a coach when he came to ISU, so he deserves time to see how well he can do.
Yeah, definitely a different era. Not only was he following an era that was much worse, but his terrible road record wasnt as visible to people because fewer of those games even made it onto tv. What people saw were the home wins, which Prohm and Orr are pretty comparable at about 75%.
Forgive the chronological mashup to simplify things, but it seems the goalposts will always be on the move for Prohm.
Can Prohm gain the respect of Niang and co. and win with "Hoiberg Guys?" Will there be a mutiny? UNC under Daugherty, Kentucky losing to Oral Roberts in the NIT, Generational Talent in Ben Simmons not sniffing the tournament, etc. There are so many examples of more talented teams not making the tournament. I'm not sure Prohm can get it done.
OK, so that year was good, but preseason top 10 team. Sure Naz then went out for the year after that preseason ranking, but finishing in the Sweet 16 and top 15 is still underacheiving. We all know Georges was really coaching the team anyway. Let's see if they can win without Georges.
Sure, they won without Georges, but now that he has to build his own team, let's see if he can bring in high ranked HS talent.
Sure, he got Lindell and THT, but how good is he at identifying under the radar recruits.
Sure, Haliburton and Young are pretty good underranked guys, but can he bring in transfers?
OK, Shayok and Jacobson look legit, but can he make the tournament with his own guys?
So he won the Big 12 tournament and got one of the highest seeds in ISU history with his guys, but the way that team beat the crap out of a mediocre KU team in Hilton, it's clear that this team has tons of talent and drastically underacheived.
Fred built ISU into a powerhouse. Those were four HISTORIC NCAA tournament wins he achieved at ISU. This program should be on autopilot. He left Prohm Monte, who plays a lot of minutes on in the NBA!!! Nader, Georges, Naz and Burton all have gotten some NBA minutes this year. How did Prohm lose any games with so damn much talent?!?!
Now he can't retain great players like Lard. I didn't watch any of the other games, but I saw the Ohio St. game, and it's clear Lard should've been playing more. No wonder he transferred. He should go somewhere where a coach will appreciate and utilize his talents.