Poll: Grade the season

[Cyforce]

I think they met preseason expectations (make the tournament) which is a solid B season.

Problem is we discovered early they were far better than initial expectations even with Lard and Wiggy lagging. Then they reverted to all conference (Lard way too late) form but the offense stopped doing what made them successful. C-

Hopefully we have enough of a nucleus returning that can grow from this season and meet their potential. A+

 

[megamanxzero35]

I think they met preseason expectations (make the tournament) which is a solid B season.

Problem is we discovered early they were far better than initial expectations even with Lard and Wiggy lagging. Then they reverted to all conference (Lard way too late) form but the offense stopped doing what made them successful. C-

Hopefully we have enough of a nucleus returning that can grow from this season and meet their potential. A+

I like this take. Obviously I voted for a higher letter grade but I think this is a good review of the season.

 

[Dandy]

C- because of the Big 12 tourny, otherwise I'd say D-. Sure we got back to the tournament, but we had a roster that should have challenged for the Big 12 regular season, and at minimum been a 3 - 4 seed in the NCAA. Instead we went 9-9 in the Big 12, and lost first round. Probably the biggest failure of a season in a long time.

Umm... do you remember last year?

 

[WIB]

Umm... do you remember last year?

We didn't have the talent to compete last season. This year we did, and we didn't. That makes it a lot worse for me.

 

[Cyclonepride]

I went with B, though I think an argument can be made for B+ with the turnaround from last year.

 

[WastedTalent]

Most national experts thought we did. I thought it was interesting Fran thought we had the most talent in the Big 12. I would trust him evaluating talent as much as anyone.

They said these things after wins against KU, and at Tech. In those wins, and when they were shooting lights out at KSt, it did appear they had the most talent. I didn't hear much from them though when the team was getting manhandled on the boards against Baylor, and cut up by TCU's average offense.

Talent is not just athletic ability, and individual offensive ability. It's a culmination of shooting, passing, dribbling, defense, bball IQ, rebounding, etc. There's a few in that criteria that as a whole, the team lacked considerably.

I did notice that in their Big 12 tournament run, the narrative was not that this was the most talented team all along, it was that they were finally buying in defensively, which was true.

 

[Jeremy]

I said A-, which I realize might be a stretch. I guess I'm old enough (36) where my expectations are based more on reality and logic than some.

My expectation was to be competitive throughout the year and make the tournament. Anything beyond that should be considered a goal or wish, not an expectation.

I therefore say we met my expectations and then one of the several goals/wishes I had. While I think we could have done even better, I can't penalize the score based on that.

 

[coolerifyoudid]

B. The bad losses were off-set by the quality road wins for me. After last year, I was expecting an improvement, but my expectations were lower based off how much we were relying on unknown pieces. Before the year began, I would have gladly taken a Big XII tourney win, 23 total wins, an NCAA tourney appearance, and a shot at a regular season title.

 

[awd4cy]

I did notice that in their Big 12 tournament run, the narrative was not that this was the most talented team all along, it was that they were finally buying in defensively, which was true.

Fran said it right before the Baylor game started in KC.

 

[cb1030]

New rule: If the average CF grade is higher than your college or high school GPA then you don't get to talk sh*t about the team/coach

 

[Halincandenza]

B+. Back to the tourney. 6 seed is pretty good and conference tourney champ but lost in the round of 64.

 

[rochclone]

B+. Back to the tourney. 6 seed is pretty good and conference tourney champ and won in the round of 64.

Won in the round of 64?

 

[allday4cy]

C-

 

[coolerifyoudid]

Won in the round of 64?

I already deleted the game off my DVR, but that didn't sound right to me either.

 

[awd4cy]

B+. Back to the tourney. 6 seed is pretty good and conference tourney champ and won in the round of 64.

We did? Shoot, I missed yesterday’s game against Houston.

 

[Halincandenza]

Won in the round of 64?

yeah meant to say "but lost" lol. My subconscious must be trying to protect me.

 

[waldclonz]

C+, we had alot of potential not fan-made potential but actual talent potential. We were just not consistent and so it was unrealized potential. Now on the basis of this year in a vacuum this is probably an unfair grade, getting to the ncaa tournament and winning the big 12 tournament would be no worse than a B. With the history of the last several years and the fact that this team isn't coming back intact makes it a big missed opportunity. Also, on a lesser note had the defense been better and stayer better all year, I could have gone higher just on higher program ceiling by being able to field a top offense and defense, which would immensely help that consistency thing.

 

[cyclones500]

I graded B-minus.

Unless preseason expectation is super-high, tournament bid gets in the B-range (First Four might be an exception). My assessment prior to the season was a 7-8-9 seed, and ISU surpassed that.

Among the positives: Won two road games vs. ranked opponents. Conference tournament week was fun. Numerous exciting moments. Crushed KU at home. Ranked in final AP top 25.

Some negatives: Performance at Hilton was sub-par. Couldn't stay in the thick of league-title race after a good uprising. Prohm never quite mastered the rotation to maximize it, especially situationally. Dud finale vs. Ohio State.

 

[TXCyclones]

C - After the end of the regular season I predicted we had two games left: one game in the B12 tournament before being eliminated and one game in NCAA before being eliminated. I was 50% right. A 50% grade is typically failing. Losing in Hilton, losing to bad/mediocre teams, blah, blah, blah... this season was nearly as disappointing as last year but w/ a slightly better W/L record.

 

[TXCyclones]

I would like some clarity on this as I'd like to try and understand where some are coming from when they bring up this point.

When did you start believing or thinking this? Kansas State returned their entire starting lineup from an Elite Eight run the year prior. They started 3 seniors and 2 juniors. Kansas had tons of talent to start the year. Injuries and NCAA legal problems hampered them. Texas has had 3 straight Top 10 recruiting classes. I personally feel this became a talking point after we blew out a depleted Kansas team in Hilton and Bill Self heaped tons of praise on our team saying our 4 guards could play for any team in the league. That's probably true but our starting lineup after our first game consisted of 4 first year players. That's a lot of new blood to get to gel and perform at such a high level.

Looking back, I think our guys overperformed in January and we as fans took that overperformance as their baseline instead of their ceiling when everything clicked.

This team showed early in conference play that they had the talent. Then the other teams seemingly got better, while we did not. So... does that mean our ability had a cap to it? Or does it mean the other teams' coaches did better with their talent than our coach did as the season went on? If they "overperformed" early and faded later then that sure sounds like a coaching issue.