Poll: Grade the season

[FinalFourCy]

C: We had one of the best and most efficient players / 2nd(?) leadings scorer in the conference (Shayok); 6th man of the year (LW); a 5th year starting PG (Babb), and probably the best freshman class in the conference. We were talented enough that a pre-season 1st team all Big 12 player HM all Big 12 player came off the bench. Yet we finished 9-9 after being in the running for the conference championship, behind Baylor, who lost their best player for the season in January.

So yes, we made the tournament, but mediocre for what this team could have accomplished.

Add to that, they went 3-3 (5-3 including the tournament) against the top 3 teams, with two wins on the road. This group left a lot on the table due to some untimely team incompetency given their individual talent.

B- or C+ seems fair for a team that met what was a modest preseason guess. Move on and up, but not at the top of the class and some weaknesses that may be a cause for concern moving forward. Could just be a bad month, but perhaps something more.

 

[IlliniCy]

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.

 

[Urbandale2013]

This is a genuine question and not just directed at you. Why do people not understand that success is based on the talent and expectations of the team. A team of walkons could be successful in not getting blown out every game. A team like Duke can be a complete failure while still making the Sweet Sixteen. Just looking at the results in a vacuum is not how you judge success. When a C student gets a B that is a good thing. When a straight A student gets a B that is cause for concern.

 

[IlliniCy]

This is a genuine question and not just directed at you. Why do people not understand that success is based on the talent and expectations of the team. A team of walkons could be successful in not getting blown out every game. A team like Duke can be a complete failure while still making the Sweet Sixteen. Just looking at the results in a vacuum is not how you judge success. When a C student gets a B that is a good thing. When a straight A student gets a B that is cause for concern.

Do grades come from black and white accomplishment lists, or are we grading on a Bell curve?

I find it hard to believe that anyone with a lick of sense would consider a season that falls in the top 10 in program history for wins, with 2 transfers and 2 TRUE freshman playing a major role , early season injuries interrupting the normal flow of growth, a talented big that can't stay out of the doghouse and another that has to shut down for the season is somehow a failure.

Now, I lost my mind with everybody else when they lost to TCU twice, or Baylor twice, but now that I've had a couple of days to reflect on the total body of work, I gave it a B.

 

[FinalFourCy]

Do grades come from black and white accomplishment lists, or are we grading on a Bell curve?

I find it hard to believe that anyone with a lick of sense would consider a season that falls in the top 10 in program history for wins, with 2 transfers and 2 TRUE freshman playing a major role , early season injuries interrupting the normal flow of growth, a talented big that can't stay out of the doghouse and another that has to shut down for the season is somehow a failure.

Now, I lost my mind with everybody else when they lost to TCU twice, or Baylor twice, but now that I've had a couple of days to reflect on the total body of work, I gave it a B.

The curve argument goes both ways. It’s in the context of recent (and most relevant) seasons and the fact there are more games played than before. 9-9, with how it came about, and a first round exit isn’t more than very average when on the curve.

If we win 6 games next year in football, after starting 5-1, it’ll be tied for the 12th most wins in a season in the past half century. It won’t be regarded as a “B” season though.

 

[IlliniCy]

The curve argument goes both ways. It’s in the context of recent (and most relevant) seasons and the fact there are more games played than before. 9-9, with how it came about, and a first round exit isn’t more than very average when on the curve.

If we win 6 games next year in football, after starting 5-1, it’ll be tied for the 12th most wins in a season in the past half century. It won’t be regarded as a “B” season though.

It's subjective.

A first round exit in the NCAA tournament is below the curve for Iowa State when they make the tournament.

2-1 against KU, 2-1 against the regular season co-champ, 1-1 against the other, a conference tournament championship are all arguably above the curve.

Losing at home to TCU and Baylor are certainly below.

I guess it's where you want to put the most weight.

I look back and see a team that could have been better for sure, but certainly could have been worse. In the history of Iowa State basketball, they've won 20+ only 14 times, and all in the last 35 years. That puts it on the positive side of the curve in my mind. Perhaps you disagree, that's cool.

NOTE: Johnny Orr's 84-85 team that lost in the first round of the NCAA played 34 games. This year's team that lost in the first round played 35. The more games argument doesn't hold water.

 

[CyCloned]

I went with a solid B. There were just too many new parts to this team. Maybe with less injuries and turmoil things could have turned out better, but based on the youth of the team, and relying of a couple reserve transfers, things went fairly well if we look at the season as a whole. After the January game the rest of the season was a disappointment up to the Big 12 tourney, but it wasn't like ISU had 6 seniors back from a 20 win team.

 

[FinalFourCy]

It's subjective.

I look back and see a team that could have been better for sure, but certainly could have been worse. In the history of Iowa State basketball, they've won 20+ only 14 times, and all in the last 35 years. That puts it on the positive side of the curve in my mind. Perhaps you disagree, that's cool.

NOTE: Johnny Orr's 84-85 team that lost in the first round of the NCAA played 34 games. This year's team that lost in the first round played 35. The more games argument doesn't hold water.

Like I said, it goes both ways. You choose to use all-time history, I choose to look more at the last 30+ years.

Note: you used 20+ wins in the context of all-time history. That doesn’t hold much water when you fail to mention we’ve only even played 20 games in 65% of the seasons. For most of the history we’ve played 26 or less. And let’s not ignore the changes to the NCAA tournament. It didn’t expand to 64 until the mid-80’s. That’s a significant difference.

 

[IlliniCy]

Like I said, it goes both ways. You choose to use all-time history, I choose to look more at the last 30+ years.

Note: you used 20+ wins in the context of all-time history. That doesn’t hold much water when you fail to mention we’ve only even played 20 games in 65% of the seasons. For most of the history we’ve played 26 or less. And let’s not ignore the changes to the NCAA tournament. It didn’t expand to 64 until the mid-80’s. That’s a significant difference.

In the history of Iowa State basketball, they've won 20+ only 14 times, and all in the last 35 years.

I guess you missed this part of my reply. If you think I'm comparing today to the 1940's, I'm not. If that was the case, every season since 1944 (Final 4) would be an F.

By the way, 1985 was the year the tournament expanded. The exact year I mentioned that Orr's team played 34 games compared to his year's 35 to show that the number of games hasn't varied.

 

[FinalFourCy]

In the history of Iowa State basketball, they've won 20+ only 14 times, and all in the last 35 years.

I guess you missed this part of my reply. If you think I'm comparing today to the 1940's, I'm not. If that was the case, every season since 1944 (Final 4) would be an F.

By the way, 1985 was the year the tournament expanded. The exact year I mentioned that Orr's team played 34 games compared to his year's 35 to show that the number of games hasn't varied.

No, I don’t think you’re comparing it to the 40’s. I do think you’re referencing archaic standards and seasons with your initial comment “I find it hard to believe that anyone with a lick of sense would consider a season that falls in the top 10 in program history for wins” and even with the second post of “In the history of Iowa State basketball, they've won 20+”.

I get you’re trying to walk back on the all-time remarks, conceding that it’s really is in the context of the last 35 seasons. Being tied for 14th with a few other seasons for conference win percentage is very average. A little better for overall win % in the past 35 seasons, but not in the in A or B area. Take into account things like simply meeting modest preseason expectations and where we are at as a program compared to the 80’s, and it’s below average when on a curve.

 

[ruxCYtable]

Disappointed with how things ended, but I think a year ago most of us would have considered getting back to the NCAA tourney a major success. Solid B.

 

[BringBackJohnny]

I was at about a B-/C+ for this season. My expectations the whole time were to make the tourney. If anyone didn't think we would make the tourney that seems crazy low. I think we got in our own way too often this season which knocked the ceiling off what we could achieve. You only get so many opportunities and we had a good one this yr. and couldn't do anything with it. The opportunity cost of some of our choices down the stretch just felt too high.

 

[IlliniCy]

No, I don’t think you’re comparing it to the 40’s. I do think you’re referencing archaic standards and seasons with your initial comment “I find it hard to believe that anyone with a lick of sense would consider a season that falls in the top 10 in program history for wins” and even with the second post of “In the history of Iowa State basketball, they've won 20+”.

I get you’re trying to walk back on the all-time remarks, conceding that it’s really is in the context of the last 35 seasons. Being tied for 14th with a few other seasons for conference win percentage is very average. A little better for overall win % in the past 35 seasons, but not in the in A or B area. Take into account things like simply meeting modest preseason expectations and where we are at as a program compared to the 80’s, and it’s below average when on a curve.

Again, subjective. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[Cyinthenorth]

I gave them a B, and I would have given them an A if not for 2 things:
1) A win over a meh Ohio State team in the 1st round
2) Fran Fraschilla aka the Talent Lobbyist

Can't really do anything about 1. I mean, Ohio State had average to below average guard play in my opinion. Just solid enough on defense while hitting a few timely 3's, nothing special. Your standard Big 10 Guards, they had a bunch of Isaiah Moss's (btw, what is this hype I'm hearing about him trying the draft? Seriously?!). Difference being, they had a baby Shaq. Talented and large post players have been this teams achilles heal since probably Homan/Vroman days. I don't fault Prohm for not having an answer. This team does not possess the personnel to stop players like Wesson. This being the case, I'd have like to see us go at him more and get him in foul trouble. Ohio State would have caved quickly without him. Alas, this did not happen, and hence a big reason for my B rating.

For 2, the TALENT Fran boasted about us having in January, then again in the Big XII Tournament, is the reason many of you are giving them B- or worse. This pipe dream, frankly coo-coo theory had Iowa State fans, myself included, thinking this team was a lot better than they truly were. I am going to try my best to not downplay our guys abilities or skills here, but it just frankly wasn't true. I think all the guys on the roster are Big 12 players, but we were starting several players this year that would have come off the bench or been role players on others. This team IS talented, but the compilation of talent made it difficult I think, for Prohm to get the most out of it. Even when you didn't have an injured Wigginton, or a troubled Cam Lard, you had 2 pass-first 6'5'' Point Guards starting every night, along with a 6'4'' 2 guard/forward that tended to disappear if he wasn't getting the ball (and caused the team to disappear at times when he WAS getting the ball). Jacobson, God bless Jacobson, but I think he was asked to do too much this year. He had a really hard time defending the opposing teams athletic 5's. He plays bigger than he is, and I think could have erased some of his flaws had he been more effective offensively (him being a better 3 pt threat would have been HUGE for this team). Steve got every ounce he could out of Jacobson and that is great, but this teams ceiling was always going to be higher with a more disciplined and focused version of Cam Lard. No knock on Jacobson. If we had a more traditional lineup, I think he could be a starter at the 4. Will we see it next year? Who knows. Essentially though, at the end of the day, Iowa State had one All-Big 12 caliber player, Shayok, in the starting 5, and he was surrounded by rather average talent. Potentially really good to great talent looking at the younger, still developing guys. But these guys were getting their first big-time action this year. An NCAA Tournament bid, in all reality for this team, is a fine accomplishment.

 

[Tom Overholser]

I rated the season a B-. For a very young team overall, they exceeded my expectations. Their inexperience at playing at this level was expected. I would expect them to mature a lot before next season. I hope that between now and then, they are coached in the art of rebounding. We were absolutely embarrassed in that facet of the game.

 

[madguy30]

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.

This is a big part of it.

Good individual skill sets but many about the same type and not many complimented the others.

 

[cyclones500]

This is a big part of it.

Good individual skill sets but many about the same type and not many complimented the others.

In some situations, too many overlapping roles among the guards. That can be a good thing, more flexibility with substitutions and minutes, but at times, we needed a Shayok-Light scorer or a pure PG distributor as a backup to Nick. (Halliburton showed flashes of being that player).

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

B-, we had too much talent on the team to finish 9-9 in the conference and then get beat in the first round of the NCAA.
I would grade the season lower, but we won the conference tournament. That alone gives the season a B something rating for a team that finished at 500% in the conference.

Said it all year long, we never meshed as a team except for the 3 days in KC. That is on coaching staff, and I think Prohm has done a wonderful job as the ISU coach. But next year is critical for the team. We need to be in the tournament and start playing to seed or above to keep my support for Prohm.

Hope he enjoys his contact extension and then goes to work making ISU a beast in 2019/20.

 

[chuckd4735]

Didn't know what to expect coming into this season, especially with all the injuries and suspensions. Started the season much better then I expected, ended the season average to below average. Then you well win the Big 12 Tourney in convincing fashion only to lose the first game of the NCAA tourney. I was between a C and C+; went with a C+ because of the strength of done of the wins.

 

[CyBobby]

I went with a B+ ….going into the season, I was hoping for 20 wins and an ncaa berth but was surprised, that we played so well in Kansas City and beat KU two out of three times this season, and of course came home with the hardware and the big 12 tourney championship.....My hopes are that this program continues to grow under Coach Steve Prohm and eventually wins a regular season conference title... and remember GO Cyclones