Let's end some myths

[mikeiastat]

True, I agree. We aren't winning games we should but I would rather beat Iona and lose to Kansas rather than Vice Versa. I know Mac has balanced it out but I would rather have it that way.

I'm with almost all the way, but this year I'd say that we won every game we were supposed to and lost 3 toss ups. with maybe one shoulnd't have lost in NW. The rest were conf losses in real tough places to play, or the other teams were mostly highly favored. There just weren't any bad stumbling blocks this year. There was also no mid range to grade us on. nearly everyone was in the top 50 or out of the the top 150.

Again those teams weren't really teams we were supposed to beat, they were toss ups. and that is the thing. Our stumbing blocks are getting smaller and smaller and fewer between. I think the Big wins will come. and yes I agree, I'm glad we're not falling flat on our face.

Not mutually exclusive though. I wouldn't mind every once in a while beating kansas if we lost to only one bad team. The problem is that in the past we were all over the board all season long. Now we have slow and steady, progress in many areas.

 

[VeloClone]

It would not suprise me if it were true. If I remember correctly Tinsley was getting shut down by a 5'4 white guy. That kid played at ILCC and is probably inch for inch the best player I have seen in person.

I just reread the Daily game summary and Morningside was hitting all sorts of outside shots just as Larry said they knew they would. Rancik had a career high but Larry's response was he had (30 maybe) but he probably gave up 48 on defense. Larry stated that the Cyclones had no right to win that overtime game. He said it was all Hiton magic*.

Alright, I am done highjacking this thread. :wink:

Edit: *Funny thing is, I thought it was at Morningside?!?

 

[cyco2000]

True, I agree. We aren't winning games we should but I would rather beat Iona and lose to Kansas rather than Vice Versa. I know Mac has balanced it out but I would rather have it that way.

I agree with a lot of your posts, but this one is really out there man. Are you friggin serious?????

I would trade a loss to Iona for a Kansas win any day of the year, and I would sure as hell hope any Clone fan would, too. You're saying you'd rather have a crappy non-confernce win vs. a great win in conference. Holy crap.

 

[Tre4ISU]

I agree with a lot of your posts, but this one is really out there man. Are you friggin serious?????

I would trade a loss to Iona for a Kansas win any day of the year, and I would sure as hell hope any Clone fan would, too. You're saying you'd rather have a crappy non-confernce win vs. a great win in conference. Holy crap.

OK, first of all in the original I meant "hasn't" not "has." Sorry about that.

Second I worded that incorrectly. What I mean is that in general I would rather beat the teams we should beat along with winning some toss ups and lose to teams that we probably should not beat. It's general thing and I should not use specific teams I suppose. Those wins against great teams are great in the short term but I think losses to teams that we should beat hurt more in the long term than big wins help. That's all I am saying. This year we did not beat the teams we should have and only won one game we shouldn't have so to speak. That is what I meant.

 

[Tre4ISU]

I just reread the Daily game summary and Morningside was hitting all sorts of outside shots just as Larry said they knew they would. Rancik had a career high but Larry's response was he had (30 maybe) but he probably gave up 48 on defense. Larry stated that the Cyclones had no right to win that overtime game. He said it was all Hiton magic*.

Alright, I am done highjacking this thread. :wink:

Edit: *Funny thing is, I thought it was at Morningside?!?

Do you have a link?

 

[Tornado man]

Those wins against great teams are great in the short term but I think losses to teams that we should beat hurt more in the long term than big wins help.

You've gone off the deep end. You really have.

 

[cyco2000]

OK, first of all in the original I meant "hasn't" not "has." Sorry about that.

Second I worded that incorrectly. What I mean is that in general I would rather beat the teams we should beat along with winning some toss ups and lose to teams that we probably should not beat. It's general thing and I should not use specific teams I suppose. Those wins against great teams are great in the short term but I think losses to teams that we should beat hurt more in the long term than big wins help. That's all I am saying. This year we did not beat the teams we should have and only won one game we shouldn't have so to speak. That is what I meant.

Really? I certainly understand more of where you're coming from now.

You just said that you don't care if we ever improve. The only way to get better is to beat teams that 'are better than us'. Otherwise, all those teams are better than us.

 

[Tre4ISU]

You've gone off the deep end. You really have.

Yes, I know. I have no clue what I am trying to say here. The main idea is consistency and I can't get it into words. Consistency, that's what I like. From there, disregard everything I have said.

 

[Tre4ISU]

Really? I certainly understand more of where you're coming from now.

You just said that you don't care if we ever improve. The only way to get better is to beat teams that 'are better than us'. Otherwise, all those teams are better than us.

No, you can improve to become better than the other teams. This is not an idea based just on name. If we come out next year and we are somehow a better team than Kansas and then I will expect us to win. I always expect us to beat teams that I think we are better than. I thought we were better than a lot of teams we lost to this year. I expected us to win because I thought we improved more than them.

 

[cyco2000]

No, you can improve to become better than the other teams. This is not an idea based just on name. If we come out next year and we are somehow a better team than Kansas and then I will expect us to win. I always expect us to beat teams that I think we are better than. I thought we were better than a lot of teams we lost to this year. I expected us to win because I thought we improved more than them.

Don't you improve by beating teams? I don't care if we're better or worse on paper, I just want to win.

I think you and I generally agree. You just have a lot more patience than I do!

What was this thread about again.......:smile:

 

[Tre4ISU]

Don't you improve by beating teams? I don't care if we're better or worse on paper, I just want to win.

I think you and I generally agree. You just have a lot more patience than I do!

What was this thread about again.......:smile:

I don't care. I am having way more fun spewing nonsensical garbage.

I agree, you prove you are better by beating them. For instance this year, going in, I thought we were a top six team. So I thought we should win 8-10 conference games. Last year I didn't think that. I thought we improved through recruiting, practice, etc. In the end, I think we did improve, but not to a point where we can see it in our record so in the real world where record does matter, we washed. I guess what I am saying is I want a team that is good (20 wins) but that also is consistent.

 

[mikeiastat]

Really? I certainly understand more of where you're coming from now.

You just said that you don't care if we ever improve. The only way to get better is to beat teams that 'are better than us'. Otherwise, all those teams are better than us.

converse is also partly true. A good way to get worse is to keep losing to teams you're supposed to beat. And by my count this year the score is 1-0 good guys. For others following along that means our range is getting tighter = consistancy, plus really 1 win way way above our range and no losses below our range.

As opposed to yes 3 wins above our range against 4 or 5 losses below.

 

[VeloClone]

Do you have a link?

Print Version > Cyclone men survive Morningside, beat Texas Southern over Thanksgiving break

 

[Tre4ISU]

converse is also partly true. A good way to get worse is to keep losing to teams you're supposed to beat. And by my count this year the score is 1-0 good guys. For others following along that means our range is getting tighter = consistancy, plus really 1 win way way above our range and no losses below our range.

As opposed to yes 3 wins above our range against 4 or 5 losses below.

We should not have lost to Northwestern. We are better than them. I think we are better than Tech and Colorado too. UNI is a toss up but I think we lost at least three games that, looking back on the season and how everything ended, we lost at least three games we shouldn't have. Now looking at a micro level we lost a whole lot more than we should have.

 

[cyco2000]

converse is also partly true. A good way to get worse is to keep losing to teams you're supposed to beat. And by my count this year the score is 1-0 good guys. For others following along that means our range is getting tighter = consistancy, plus really 1 win way way above our range and no losses below our range.

As opposed to yes 3 wins above our range against 4 or 5 losses below.

So you're saying you think we were the 11th best team in the conference this year, and we didn't lose any games we were supposed to win?

 

[mikeiastat]

So you're saying you think we were the 11th best team in the conference this year, and we didn't lose any games we were supposed to win?

We're not really 11th. we're tied for 9th. we were picked to be 8th 9th and 10th in most experts. What you think we're supposed to win doesn't make it so. We finished where we were expected to. We also lost to a team we are probably better than ON THE ROAD. That doens't mean we were supposed to win. It was the very definition of a toss up.

So no I don't think we had any losses that we were supposed to win. Unfortunatly there wern't a lot of toss ups and we lost a few of them. But again. None we were SUPPOSED TO WIN. Going forward, I hope the realistic and expert expectations will follow more closely with what you think should happen, but this year was continued improvement by staying on schedule. Statistics other than BIG xII wins largely support that.

 

[cyco2000]

We're not really 11th. we're tied for 9th. we were picked to be 8th 9th and 10th in most experts. What you think we're supposed to win doesn't make it so. We finished where we were expected to. We also lost to a team we are probably better than ON THE ROAD. That doens't mean we were supposed to win. It was the very definition of a toss up.

So no I don't think we had any losses that we were supposed to win. Unfortunatly there wern't a lot of toss ups and we lost a few of them. But again. None we were SUPPOSED TO WIN. Going forward, I hope the realistic and expert expectations will follow more closely with what you think should happen, but this year was continued improvement by staying on schedule. Statistics other than BIG xII wins largely support that.

Thing is, we are really 11th. If we were really a 9th place team, we would have beaten Texas Tech and Oklahoma. We didn't, and you said we didn't lose to anyone we were suppsoed to beat, so we're the 11th place team. That's right where you had us pegged at the beginning of the year?

 

[mikeiastat]

Thing is, we are really 11th. If we were really a 9th place team, we would have beaten Texas Tech and Oklahoma. We didn't, and you said we didn't lose to anyone we were suppsoed to beat, so we're the 11th place team. That's right where you had us pegged at the beginning of the year?

Do you have any understanding of NCAA basketball and home court advantage? Those games were toss ups and we lost at their place. That doesn't make us a worse team, it makes them better on that day at their own place.

If we had a more level playing field say, an entire big XII schedule maybe our records would look the same. Oh my bad. they are. The only reason we're playing in the 11 spot is because we can't have 3 teams in the 9 spot. Not the case in the standings. Where we take out the uneven playing field.

 

[cyco2000]

Do you have any understanding of NCAA basketball and home court advantage? Those games were toss ups and we lost at their place. That doesn't make us a worse team, it makes them better on that day at their own place.

If we had a more level playing field say, an entire big XII schedule maybe our records would look the same. Oh my bad. they are.

To answer your question: no. I am only trying to figure out your argument.

Anyway...you're counting the games we lost as 'toss-ups', not games we shouldn't have won.

Were there any 'toss-ups' that we won?

 

[CYKOFAN]

Just got back and finished reading these threads, and it's good to see some things never change. Apparently now losing records are actually better than winning records, beating bad teams is better than beating good teams, and a worsening conference record each year means gradual improvement. A 2nd round NCAA appearance wasn't that good because we had earlier lost to some teams we should have beat (so I guess the elite 8 year wasn't really that good because we had earlier lost to a bad Drake team). Bottom line is people that feel the need to diss Morgan (a coach that gave us great wins and post season success) and continue to defend GMac (a coach that has given us nothing but losing seasons) really need to take a good look at themselves. And I certainly don't dislike Mac and still hope he can get it done, it's just that so far he has done absolutely nothing any way you try to slice it.