Jon - ISU a 2011 17th Seed?!!

B

bhawk326

Well-Known Member
Joe Lunardi has put together a preliminary 96-seed tournament for next year based on his astute analysis (link below) ...

Bracketology - ESPN

ISU as a 17th seed?!!! I'm not cyclone-hater, but obviously Joe has not been paying attention to Iowa State basketball. After the defections and with only having 4 scholarship players they are going to make the tournament. With all the talk about the ICA basketball team on Miller-Deace winning 11 games, how is the ISU team going to make the tournament? Jon, if you are planning to talk any more hoops tomorrow on the program, maybe you could mention Joe's high opinion of ISU basketball.
 
bhawk326 said:
Joe Lunardi has put together a preliminary 96-seed tournament for next year based on his astute analysis (link below) ...

Bracketology - ESPN

ISU as a 17th seed?!!! I'm not cyclone-hater, but obviously Joe has not been paying attention to Iowa State basketball. After the defections and with only having 4 scholarship players they are going to make the tournament. With all the talk about the ICA basketball team on Miller-Deace winning 11 games, how is the ISU team going to make the tournament? Jon, if you are planning to talk any more hoops tomorrow on the program, maybe you could mention Joe's high opinion of ISU basketball.
Click to expand...

Discussing Joe Lunardi at this point in the year is folly.
 
I cant believe they are only a 17 seed. They had a great non conference schedule and their RPI is 23. They won 10 games in conference and had road wins against Oklahoma, Mizzouri and Texas. If that doesnt warrant a 16 seed then i guess i just dont understand the field of 96 anymore. Oh wait, its April 15 and the season hasnt quite started yet. Who cares? Lunardi just picked 96 teams and called it a day because he didnt think anyone would read it
 
Did anyone notice he has like ALL ACC teams, 8-11 Big 10 teams, 9 of the Big 12. Its a joke, I thought this was a chance for the smaller schools to get in, instead we are going to allow a sub .500 ball club in? Seriously the rule should state if you don't have a winning conference record, or winning record overall, you don't get in! If they are going to allow a 13-18 team from the ACC, I am not for this at all. Give a little school who got to 20 wins a chance. Don't reward crappy play from the ACC, Big 10 or Big 12.
 
IowaFanSince82 said:
Did anyone notice he has like ALL ACC teams, 8-11 Big 10 teams, 9 of the Big 12. Its a joke, I thought this was a chance for the smaller schools to get in, instead we are going to allow a sub .500 ball club in? Seriously the rule should state if you don't have a winning conference record, or winning record overall, you don't get in! If they are going to allow a 13-18 team from the ACC, I am not for this at all. Give a little school who got to 20 wins a chance. Don't reward crappy play from the ACC, Big 10 or Big 12.
Click to expand...
Exactly, it needs to be similar to a bowl game(win 6 games to be eligible which is .500 most of the time) must win X amount of games or win your conference tourney.
 
IowaFanSince82 said:
Did anyone notice he has like ALL ACC teams, 8-11 Big 10 teams, 9 of the Big 12. Its a joke, I thought this was a chance for the smaller schools to get in, instead we are going to allow a sub .500 ball club in? Seriously the rule should state if you don't have a winning conference record, or winning record overall, you don't get in! If they are going to allow a 13-18 team from the ACC, I am not for this at all. Give a little school who got to 20 wins a chance. Don't reward crappy play from the ACC, Big 10 or Big 12.
Click to expand...

Expansion is a money grab so the big conferences will reap the rewards. Complete joke.
 
You really want to have a rule that you have to have...

IowaFanSince82 said:
Did anyone notice he has like ALL ACC teams, 8-11 Big 10 teams, 9 of the Big 12. Its a joke, I thought this was a chance for the smaller schools to get in, instead we are going to allow a sub .500 ball club in? Seriously the rule should state if you don't have a winning conference record, or winning record overall, you don't get in! If they are going to allow a 13-18 team from the ACC, I am not for this at all. Give a little school who got to 20 wins a chance. Don't reward crappy play from the ACC, Big 10 or Big 12.
Click to expand...

a winning conference record? What if you play in the best league in the country? With expansion to 96 teams, there are obviously going to be teams in that wouldn't have been earlier. Yes, lots of teams from the power conferences are getting in with this setup. But Lundardi also has 3 teams from the Mo Valley, 4 from the Mountain West, 2 from the Colonial, 2 from the Horizon, 2 from the Mid-American, 2 from the West Coast, 4 from C-USA, 6 from the Atlantic 10.
 
I still agree that a team should have at least a .500 conference and overall record. They are really going to ruin the Tourney. Leave it at 64(not 65).
 
I am going a little off topic here, but one thing that looking at those brackets made me realize is we may finally see a #16 seed knock off a #1 seed. Those former 16 seed creampuffs will now be #24 seeds and the 16/17 game will potentially feature at large teams from major conferences. One would think Iowa State would give Duke a better game than a Morgan State or a Belmont.
 
ssckelley said:
I am going a little off topic here, but one thing that looking at those brackets made me realize is we may finally see a #16 seed knock off a #1 seed. Those former 16 seed creampuffs will now be #24 seeds and the 16/17 game will potentially feature at large teams from major conferences. One would think Iowa State would give Duke a better game than a Morgan State or a Belmont.
Click to expand...

Not me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top