You should be happy they didn't. If they went strictly by RPI, Iowa isn't in at all. There is also the possibility that these people have eyeballs and can tell a train wreck when they see one.
Play in game
- Thread starter CoKane
- Start date
You should be happy they didn't. If they went strictly by RPI, Iowa isn't in at all. There is also the possibility that these people have eyeballs and can tell a train wreck when they see one.
Well we learned one thing for certain, good losses or losses to teams you are better than, didn't count as much with the committee as Iowa and their fans were hoping.
Don't let another discussion cloud your judgement in this one. Not many predictors out there had Dayton, BYU in the tourney, let alone above an Iowa.
Plus it is all objective. I also think ISU deserved a #2 seed, not the last #3 seed. Virginia at a #1 to me doesn't make any sense if you look at the body or work, and several other items. They have a very difficult job setting this up, so in the scheme of things you can always pick several nits. Most teams are gonna think they are down a spot or two from what they got seeded.
It's an observation of what appears to be the truth. The team didn't play like a team inspired by a kid with health issues.
RealTimeRPI.com Men's College Basketball Rating Percentage Index (RPI) Ratings - A leading sports ratings and resources community on the Internet
K State's RPI is 14 spots higher and they play in the best conference in college basketball. BYU, Dayton and Nebraska all have better RPI's than Iowa. Don't really see how you could complain about Iowa's seed, they were the definition of a bubble team (which is what I told you before the season).
You should be happy anyways, you cheer for ISU and we just had a great weekend of basketball...enjoy it Deano!
I think I will be updating your avatar in the next couple days.
My nephew is going to be heading to SA to catch the games. He is in college (UNI), and doesn't know if they are going to go to the game??? What the heck is wrong with college kids, why the heck go down, and not go to the games? I might just buy him a ticket to the games, as I know it is probably a money thing. I remember going to Minneapolis when ISU was there in 2002 or 2003 I think. Those games were awesome, the only time I've been to any of the NCAA tourney games.
RPI is ONE TOOL the committee uses, its not the only one. But even so, let's compare Iowa and K-State's RPI:
Iowa has 5 Top 50 wins but 3 of them are against teams that barely snuck in: Xavier (49), Nebraska (46), and Minnesota (50). So they really had 2 solid wins ALL YEAR, against Michigan (9) and OSU (24).
K-State had 7 Top 50 wins and only ONE was on the fringe of the Top 50, Oklahoma State (45). They have wins against #3, #8, #22, #28, #29, #36, and #45.
It's crystal clear that K-State's resume is way better than Iowa's. I do think Iowa deserved to be in the tournament, but you can't complain about where they were placed. Beat Indiana (RPI 98) or Northwestern (RPI 123) and you aren't in the play-in game.
I can complain about whatever I want!! At least that is what my wife tells me all the time.
If Iowa loses are Hawk fans going to be wanting Fran fired all off season? I see he's getting a hefty raise for getting in the play in game
Ha! But seriously, you see how comparing K-State and Iowa doesn't hold water?
Now if you want to complain/compare about Dayton (they are going to put the host school of the play-in games in a play-in game), BYU, NC State, then I understand that. But when you get to the last handful of teams, it really doesn't matter the order. Because as I said, none of those teams can complain about where they are placed....they should have won another game or two.
You also conveniently ignored the fact that K-State has waaaaayyyyyy worse bad losses. UNCO (202), Char (150 RPI) WVU (#87) and Georgetown (68)?? Much, much worse than Iowas two bad losses of jNW (123 PRI) and Indiana (#97 RPI) Illinois (63) Minny (47)
Listen, I'm not going to cry about what Iowa got seeded, as they shouldn't have lost 6 of 7. I'm not even saying that K-State shouldn't be higher than Iowa, as my real beef isn't against K-State. I'm just saying their resume wasn't 2 seeds higher than Iowas, and BYU and Dayton certainly weren't better resumes than Iowa. All that said, once again, Iowa is in this spot, cause the sh** the bed, and they put themselves in this spot to get this seed.
I feel like calling the play-in games the "first round" is the NCAA's version of a participation ribbon.
Nobody is going to be calling for Fran's head. Look where this program was when he came in. Yet he underachieved with this years team, there is no doubt about that.
compared to pre-season expectations, iowa didnt underachieve that badly. it was the collapse that apparently has everyone riled up. in reality their ratings just got inflated due to an easier than expected schedule. I was personally thinking they were a bubble team coming in to this year .
I don't think he underachieved at all to be honest with you. Iowa lacks talent but has plenty of experience, as other younger, talented teams play together more they gain experience and get better while Iowa stayed the same.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 41,245
- 29,611
- 113
Fran's seat is by no means hot, or even very warm, but this year's collapse is having an impact. He's starting to lose people. It may only be a trickle now, but if Iowa loses on Wednesday, there will be more. And if they take a step back next year? Open the floodgates.
"Waaaaaaaay" worse? No way. They have one more bad loss (UNCO 202 the first game of the season).
Char vs. Northwestern
WVU vs. Indiana
Georgetown (who was part of the first 4 out) vs. Illinois
Again, Northern CO was the outlier and really the only difference in losses when you compare the 2. But they have SO MANY more quality wins that loss easily gets offset.
