Here’s a thought….

83Hawk

All-Conference
Jan 1, 2023
1,427
3,132
113
Tom Davis’ Iowa teams were generally pretty good rebounders. I always thought he did a good job coaching our “bigs”. Coach McCollum obviously admired Davis. I realize he’s old, but why not consider bringing him in as a consultant to help improve rebounding and big man play?

I know, I know…..dumb suggestion.
 

AndreTheHawk

All-Conference
Jul 2, 2025
937
1,877
93
Tom Davis’ Iowa teams were generally pretty good rebounders. I always thought he did a good job coaching our “bigs”. Coach McCollum obviously admired Davis. I realize he’s old, but why not consider bringing him in as a consultant to help improve rebounding and big man play?

I know, I know…..dumb suggestion.
Go Big or go home. Lew Alcindor.
 

shrinkhawk

Junior
Nov 20, 2009
165
333
63
Im aware there are plenty of 'older' folks on this board...but Tom Davis is the ripe old age of 87...1 year _older than Bill Snyder. If we bring him back, Iowa definitely has to bring back both imo...maybe a package deal in 1980's dollars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JerseyCityHawk

The Big Z

All-Conference
Jan 5, 2023
1,495
2,671
113
Tom Davis’ Iowa teams were generally pretty good rebounders. I always thought he did a good job coaching our “bigs”. Coach McCollum obviously admired Davis. I realize he’s old, but why not consider bringing him in as a consultant to help improve rebounding and big man play?

I know, I know…..dumb suggestion.
Dr Toms teams rebounded well out of his zone defense which teams that play zone normally don’t do. McCollum basically only plays man so not sure it’s anything that would match up. But I’m guessing those 2 have maybe spoke once or twice. 🤷‍♂️
 

Nvhwk

Sophomore
Mar 20, 2025
102
157
43
Tom Davis’ Iowa teams were generally pretty good rebounders. I always thought he did a good job coaching our “bigs”. Coach McCollum obviously admired Davis. I realize he’s old, but why not consider bringing him in as a consultant to help improve rebounding and big man play?

I know, I know…..dumb suggestion.
Tom had a coach for rebound every time at practice he would yell rebound.
 

The Big Z

All-Conference
Jan 5, 2023
1,495
2,671
113
Tom Davis' teams rebounded well in part because they had poor perimeter defense, they packed everyone inside. It was that defense that allowed UNLV to come back and win in 1987.
Total BS. No matter what it’s hard to rebound consistently out of a zone and his teams always did. And it was a different game in the 80’s and early 90’s as teams didn’t shoot a ton of 3’s yet. Yes, UNLV made a fair amount but we also just quit scoring and went cold. And UNlV was one of the early adopters of the 3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyesofhawk

Madman_1

Junior
Dec 28, 2002
2,253
284
83
Total BS. No matter what it’s hard to rebound consistently out of a zone and his teams always did. And it was a different game in the 80’s and early 90’s as teams didn’t shoot a ton of 3’s yet. Yes, UNLV made a fair amount but we also just quit scoring and went cold. And UNlV was one of the early adopters of the 3.
Actually, totally accurate. Davis' refusal to emphasis 3 point shot defense led to several head-shaker games wherein some rinky-dink team would hit a ridiculous number of 3's. And if a big ten opponent was on target from 3 on a given night, forget about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chipackhawk

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
1,787
2,065
113
Actually, totally accurate. Davis' refusal to emphasis 3 point shot defense led to several head-shaker games wherein some rinky-dink team would hit a ridiculous number of 3's. And if a big ten opponent was on target from 3 on a given night, forget about it.
Well, he rebutted your UNLV claim.

Now you're switching to games that happened mostly in the 90's, after the 3 had become much more mainstream
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Big Z

MacMiney

Senior
Jul 3, 2025
234
423
63
Let the guy relax man.

*Although I heard a grueling interview with Rob Howe and him a month ago, or so. TD handled that with class and didn't miss a beat. Lots of stupid questions being asked of him and unnecessary tangents. A total mess and he handled it with class. If he got through that, he could do this yes. He even did the smart subtle thing and after an eternity of this, had a phone battery issue and that ended the interview :LOL:. Smart man.
 

Hawk48

All-Conference
Jun 10, 2005
982
1,457
93
Actually, totally accurate. Davis' refusal to emphasis 3 point shot defense led to several head-shaker games wherein some rinky-dink team would hit a ridiculous number of 3's. And if a big ten opponent was on target from 3 on a given night, forget about it.
Davis was a great coach with Raveling's players not so much otherwise IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NIhawk79

chipackhawk

All-Conference
Jan 10, 2018
446
1,078
93
Actually, totally accurate. Davis' refusal to emphasis 3 point shot defense led to several head-shaker games wherein some rinky-dink team would hit a ridiculous number of 3's. And if a big ten opponent was on target from 3 on a given night, forget about it.
100% correct - it was maddening. He most certainly would have gotten the same treatment Fran got for his team's defense.
 

chipackhawk

All-Conference
Jan 10, 2018
446
1,078
93
Well, he rebutted your UNLV claim.

Now you're switching to games that happened mostly in the 90's, after the 3 had become much more mainstream
When the 3 point shot was first brought in it was simply at the top of the key. It was not a difficult shot. Davis was an offense first coach and tried to speed the game up. That was his priority.
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
1,787
2,065
113
When the 3 point shot was first brought in it was simply at the top of the key. It was not a difficult shot. Davis was an offense first coach and tried to speed the game up. That was his priority.
That was the first season with the 3 in college. And UNLV was one of about 2 teams in the country to use it as a weapon.

The concept of defending the 3, as a priority, didn't even exist at that time. Defending the paint was the priority, and nearly every coach was completely fine with letting the oppent launch away.

And BTW, Davis primarily sped the game up through his defense
 

chipackhawk

All-Conference
Jan 10, 2018
446
1,078
93
That was the first season with the 3 in college. And UNLV was one of about 2 teams in the country to use it as a weapon.

The concept of defending the 3, as a priority, didn't even exist at that time. Defending the paint was the priority, and nearly every coach was completely fine with letting the oppent launch away.

And BTW, Davis primarily sped the game up through his defense
He sped the game up through full court pressing, I agree with you. His half court defense was primarily zone and that is what I always had issues with. He never really did adapt with that aspect of defending the three. So many open looks.
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
1,787
2,065
113
He sped the game up through full court pressing, I agree with you. His half court defense was primarily zone and that is what I always had issues with. He never really did adapt with that aspect of defending the three. So many open looks.
Iowa also got mileage over the years from the opponent shooting too quickly, and too many corner 3's, which allowed Iowa to get out and run. It was part of how Iowa would drag their opponent into a fast-paced game that was uncomfortable and tiring for them.

Davis would face guard across the court, and guard the inbounder, in the full-court press. He certainly had no problem living with pace over the top.

Clearly, Davis was a system coach. Every system has its strengths and vulnerable points. He had a few adjustments within the system. But primarily, Iowa lived and died (much more often lived) by doing its thing.

It's fair to say some open 3's was a point of vulnerability in the Davis system. It's also fair to realize that Iowa was always one of the nation's best in rebounding margin.

Overall, Davis got a ton of mileage out of his system, and a lot of success at Iowa. I'm not sure what your point is
 

The Big Z

All-Conference
Jan 5, 2023
1,495
2,671
113
Davis was a great coach with Raveling's players not so much otherwise IMO.
So not true. If the Chris Street event does not happen we would have at least made the sweet 16 once or twice more under him and possibly the Elite 8. And of course our last sweet 16 before this year was under him, and we took UConn down to the final minutes. University also changed the rules on him a couple of times in regards to recruiting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyesofhawk

jedhawk77

All-Conference
Iowa Swarm member
Jun 7, 2015
1,085
2,223
113
So not true. If the Chris Street event does not happen we would have at least made the sweet 16 once or twice more under him and possibly the Elite 8. And of course our last sweet 16 before this year was under him, and we took UConn down to the final minutes. University also changed the rules on him a couple of times in regards to recruiting.
While all programs and teams have their share of tough luck, the Street tragedy and also losing Ray Thompson a few years prior really hampered Iowa during the middle of Dr Tom's tenure.
 

chipackhawk

All-Conference
Jan 10, 2018
446
1,078
93
Iowa also got mileage over the years from the opponent shooting too quickly, and too many corner 3's, which allowed Iowa to get out and run. It was part of how Iowa would drag their opponent into a fast-paced game that was uncomfortable and tiring for them.

Davis would face guard across the court, and guard the inbounder, in the full-court press. He certainly had no problem living with pace over the top.

Clearly, Davis was a system coach. Every system has its strengths and vulnerable points. He had a few adjustments within the system. But primarily, Iowa lived and died (much more often lived) by doing its thing.

It's fair to say some open 3's was a point of vulnerability in the Davis system. It's also fair to realize that Iowa was always one of the nation's best in rebounding margin.

Overall, Davis got a ton of mileage out of his system, and a lot of success at Iowa. I'm not sure what your point is
My point is I didn't like the way he coached defense, specifically in the half court. It's Ok to not like everything about him. And he did far better with Raveling's recruits than he did with his own. That is simply fact. I didn't make my initial post to be argumentative, but if you want to continue, have at it.
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
1,787
2,065
113
My point is I didn't like the way he coached defense, specifically in the half court. It's Ok to not like everything about him. And he did far better with Raveling's recruits than he did with his own. That is simply fact. I didn't make my initial post to be argumentative, but if you want to continue, have at it.
So, you didn't like something about a successful coach. What's your point?
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
1,787
2,065
113
My point is I didn't like the way he coached defense, specifically in the half court. It's Ok to not like everything about him. And he did far better with Raveling's recruits than he did with his own. That is simply fact. I didn't make my initial post to be argumentative, but if you want to continue, have at it.
Do you know what it means to be a "system coach"?

You can't like or dislike specific parts of the system.

You either like the system, as a whole, or you don't
 
Last edited:

Madman_1

Junior
Dec 28, 2002
2,253
284
83
My point is I didn't like the way he coached defense, specifically in the half court. It's Ok to not like everything about him. And he did far better with Raveling's recruits than he did with his own. That is simply fact. I didn't make my initial post to be argumentative, but if you want to continue, have at it.

Chip, responding to eyes gets similar results as talking to a clueless child.

Nonsensical arguments are what he delivers, and it winds up being a waste of time.
 

chipackhawk

All-Conference
Jan 10, 2018
446
1,078
93
Do you know what it means to be a "system coach"?

You can't like or dislike specific parts of the system.

You either like the system, as a whole, or you don't
Must be nice to go through life seeing things as black and white. I'm starting to see how and why you have gained your reputation. When you argue like this you lose all credibility and when you have a solid point - nobody gives a F about it.
 

TrojanHawkeye

All-Conference
Feb 11, 2009
669
1,101
93
Davis was a great coach with Raveling's players not so much otherwise IMO.
Really good coach that had trouble recruiting the players he needed to truly succeed. It's the same question I have about Ben, guess a week or 2 and we'll have some more information on that
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
1,787
2,065
113
Must be nice to go through life seeing things as black and white. I'm starting to see how and why you have gained your reputation. When you argue like this you lose all credibility and when you have a solid point - nobody gives a F about it.
So no, you don't understand what a system coach is. Got it
 

chipackhawk

All-Conference
Jan 10, 2018
446
1,078
93
Listen, based on your obvious rigidity I understand you are likely somewhere on the spectrum - where exactly is probably a day by day proposition. Yes, I do understand Davis was a "system" coach and much to your inability to accept, there are parts of his system that I did not like. It's called having an opinion and when you have an inability to accept what others may think, that is on you. I won't waste any more time because I understand when an exercise is futile.
 

eyesofhawk

All-Conference
Apr 17, 2011
1,787
2,065
113
Listen, based on your obvious rigidity I understand you are likely somewhere on the spectrum - where exactly is probably a day by day proposition. Yes, I do understand Davis was a "system" coach and much to your inability to accept, there are parts of his system that I did not like. It's called having an opinion and when you have an inability to accept what others may think, that is on you. I won't waste any more time because I understand when an exercise is futile.
Assuming you're posting at me, again you verify that you don’t know what a system coach is.

Perhaps it's you that's on the spectrum, as you suggest as much in others, when your complaints are delegitimized.

Let me help you out again. Some open perimeter shots, although a point of vulnerability, was part of a system. It was part of what allowed success in other areas of what was a successful system.

It wasn't an oversight, or an inability to be coached against, or a lack of adjustment. It was something Davis was willing to live with, as part of a successful system.

System coaches aren't adjustment coaches. They try to impose their system, to create a style.of game that most often the opponent has to adjust to.

You're welcome for the wins