Toughest schedule since I was born ('85)?

**khaal53** · 03-19-2010, 01:55 PM

I don't think the non-con was that weak compared to what ISU usually schedules. I have no idea how it would rank nationally this year. But Duke, UNI, Cal, Houston, Northwestern, and St Louis isn't a bad start.

**isucy1234** · 03-19-2010, 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by khaal53

I don't think the non-con was that weak compared to what ISU usually schedules. I have no idea how it would rank nationally this year. But Duke, UNI, Cal, Houston, Northwestern, and St Louis isn't a bad start.

Not sure if anyone here is familiar with the Pomeroy ratings at all... But they have Iowa State with the 38th toughest strength on schedule in the nation. And 226th toughest non-conference strength of schedule.

2010 Pomeroy Ratings

**CYKOFAN** · 03-19-2010, 02:09 PM

There were a few good teams mixed in with some very weak ones. But last week somebody posted the average number of ranked teams played per year for GMac and the previous 3 coaches, and GMac has averaged playing about 2 less ranked teams per year than Floyd, LE and Morgan, so overall the strength of schedule excuse doesn't work in his favor.

**jdoggivjc** · 03-19-2010, 02:09 PM

So the latest excuse is our schedule was too tough? Wow, I mean, this is the Big 12, folks, and down years to dominate in are going to be few and far inbetween. Either we learn how to play with the big boys or we just close up shop now because waiting and hoping to be ready to compete when the competition is down is not a sane operation strategy...

**becrisgreg** · 03-19-2010, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by BryceC

It was a pretty good sched but those Big 8 years were really, really good and our noncon was nothing to write home about this year.

This year was far from our toughest schedule. You were only 6, but our 91 schedule embarrasses this years. Johnny on many times stated that he created the schedule that year to win the national championship - Until "Sam Mack decided to rob the God Damn Burgerking" and Mark Baugh did his best Lawrence Phillips impersonation.

The Big 8 was as tough as the Big XII and our Non-conference schedule that year included:
Arizona, Syracuse, North Carolina, Michigan, Indiana, Temple, Iowa, Creighton, Houston, Minnesota, and Baylor.

Even with the dreaded "bad luck" and a much tougher schedule we still ended up with about the same record we had this year.

**vmbplayer** · 03-19-2010, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by drlove

When you say a team like CU sucks, you do realize that they played largely the same schedule ISU did and they finished ahead of ISU. No they didn't play Duke or UNI, but they did play Gonzaga away from Boulder.

The problem with your premise is that the Big 12 isn't magically going to become the WAC if we keep our coach. We have a coach that has to perform in the Big 12. Thus far, he hasn't.

Actually my whole premise is you can't look at simply at the w-l column to judge improvement since Mac took over, as you just did to compare us with CU. If you look at Nebraska, CU and OU look at their results they were getting blown out in many if not most conference games. Most being 10 point margins or more, many being 20 points. Look at our conference losses and other than Kansas and Baylor they were all within 10. A result that would have not happened in year's 1-3 of Mac. If we had last years team this season we would have had OU/CU style blowouts all season.

My premise is that we as a team were better this year, and our teams have gotten better over each of the last three seasons. If that trend were to continue next year, we would be a factor in the big 12 next year even if the conference stays at this all time high level of competition. We don't need a conference collapse to become relevant.

If there is a problem with my premise it's the assumption that we will continue to improve. Which would be a decent argument when you look at the players we are losing. Not that we need the conference to collapse for us to be successful. No matter how elite the conference is, with steady improvement from year to year we will eventually catch them unless the whole conference improves at a faster rate than we are improving. I don't foresee the Big 12 or any conference for that matter getting more than 7-8 teams in the tournament with an average of about a 5 seed.

**khaal53** · 03-19-2010, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by isucy1234

Not sure if anyone here is familiar with the Pomeroy ratings at all... But they have Iowa State with the 38th toughest strength on schedule in the nation. And 226th toughest non-conference strength of schedule.

2010 Pomeroy Ratings

I was poking around there and couldn't find it. Good work.

Yeah, I guess we played some decent teams, but the bad teams we played were really effing bad.

**vmbplayer** · 03-19-2010, 02:21 PM

Originally Posted by becrisgreg

This year was far from our toughest schedule. You were only 6, but our 91 schedule embarrasses this years. Johnny on many times stated that he created the schedule that year to win the national championship - Until Sam Mack decided to rob to God Damn Burgerking and Mark Baugh did his best Lawrence Phillips impersonation.

The Big 8 was as tough as the Big XII and our Non-conference schedule that year included:
Arizona, Syracuse, North Carolina, Michigan, Indiana, Temple, Iowa, Creighton, Houston, and Baylor.

Fair point, I didn't see that because I will admit I only looked at conference play because it was easier to compare. '91 was pretty brutal.

**becrisgreg** · 03-19-2010, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by vmbplayer

Actually my whole premise is you can't look at simply at the w-l column to judge improvement since Mac took over, .

You are what your record says you are....

**vmbplayer** · 03-19-2010, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

So the latest excuse is our schedule was too tough? Wow, I mean, this is the Big 12, folks, and down years to dominate in are going to be few and far inbetween. Either we learn how to play with the big boys or we just close up shop now because waiting and hoping to be ready to compete when the competition is down is not a sane operation strategy...

Actually the post wasn't at all meant to be an excuse. Just the general point is that the team improved from last year, and the w-l record doesn't reflect that because of the level of the Big 12. I'm not saying the result was okay, or what we should expect. The whole point is WE IMPROVED and hopefully will continue until we are competing. Not let's just wait until the conference sucks.

I can understand you not wanting to take the time to read my full post to figure that out though because it was pretty long.

**CarolinaCy** · 03-19-2010, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by jdoggivjc

So the latest excuse is our schedule was too tough? Wow, I mean, this is the Big 12, folks, and down years to dominate in are going to be few and far inbetween. Either we learn how to play with the big boys or we just close up shop now because waiting and hoping to be ready to compete when the competition is down is not a sane operation strategy...

Why is it that anytime someone posts anything that isn't doom and gloom about the MBB team that it's an excuse, or they are a "GMac apologist", whatever the hell that is.

What I read was a point of view that says we may not have had the record we all would have liked, but we played some pretty good teams, and were very close to winning many of those games. If they can figure out how to seal the deal once in a while, maybe things won't be so bad. God forbid anyone ever have any hope for the future.

**vmbplayer** · 03-19-2010, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by becrisgreg

You are what your record says you are....

I agree that the w-l record is what you are aiming to improve and is a measure of how you stack up against the competition. This year in the Big 12 we were a bad team. The point is we were improved.

Take Ames High School who had a great year and won the state title. Now put them in the NBA, the w-l record plummets, but their talent doesn't.

I'm not saying we should be happy to just have a better team every year if we are still losing to everybody, just that the w-l doesn't necessarily shows movement in the correct direction. If in year one we lose by an average of 30, In year 2 we lose by an average of 15 and in year three we lose by an average of 5 the w-l column is the same. However, the trend would offer some reason to be optimistic for year 4.

I'm not happy with what the w-l record says we were this year either. However, it does not show if we have improved or gotten worse.

**khaal53** · 03-19-2010, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by CarolinaCy

Why is it that anytime someone posts anything that isn't doom and gloom about the MBB team that it's an excuse, or they are a "GMac apologist", whatever the hell that is.

What I read was a point of view that says we may not have had the record we all would have liked, but we played some pretty good teams, and were very close to winning many of those games. If they can figure out how to seal the deal once in a while, maybe things won't be so bad. God forbid anyone ever have any hope for the future.

THANK YOU. There really is a middle ground. It's just that we aren't the loudest ones.

**drlove** · 03-19-2010, 02:44 PM

Now that isn't a bad point.
Still, CU was 2 plays away from going 8-8 in the conference.

**becrisgreg** · 03-19-2010, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by vmbplayer

I agree that the w-l record is what you are aiming to improve and is a measure of how you stack up against the competition. This year in the Big 12 we were a bad team. The point is we were improved.

Take Ames High School who had a great year and won the state title. Now put them in the NBA, the w-l record plummets, but their talent doesn't.

I'm not saying we should be happy to just have a better team every year if we are still losing to everybody, just that the w-l doesn't necessarily shows movement in the correct direction. If in year one we lose by an average of 30, In year 2 we lose by an average of 15 and in year three we lose by an average of 5 the w-l column is the same. However, the trend would offer some reason to be optimistic for year 4.

I'm not happy with what the w-l record says we were this year either. However, it does not show if we have improved or gotten worse.

I agree we are better than we were last year.

I think this is McDermott's 2nd best team, behind his first team. But we compete in the BigXII and that is our measuring stick. In relation to our competition we are as bad or worse this year than we were last year.

Would this team beat the aforementioned Ames High? If we played them twice and beat them 70-30 the first game and 75-22 the second game would you celebrate the morale victory of improvement?

Bottom line is we were the 11th best team in the conference we play in, but we would have finished 3rd in the Missouri Valley. Should I feel good about that?