Scheduling

[HawkeyeNTexas]

Iowa obviously has lost 2 road games against ranked apponents, and the Villanova game was on a neutral court. They could have easily won each game and would currently be in the top 10. Keep in mind this is simply a WHAT IF.....

Let's take a look at two of the teams that Iowa lost to on the road. (ISU and Wisconsin) Two teams who I am not convinced just yet deserve their ranking. ISU doesn't play a ranked apponent on the road until January 29th. Iowa will have played 3 by then. Wisconsin doesn't play a ranked apponent on the road until February 4th.

Imagine if Iowa had played both teams at home. You could be currently looking at a 14-1 record or 15-0 if they beat villanova. Imagine if ISU played Michigan, Iowa, and Baylor on the road.....all losses? maybe....maybe not....you get the point.

I agree and understand you could create what if situations all day long, but you also can't argue against ISU and Wisconsin's current record. I don't dispute that. I simply think Iowa would be in a similar position if the shoe was on the other foot.

 

[theboat]

Ifs and buts.

If Iowa had those games at home, they probably pull them out, but they didn't so they didn't. The good thing is that those games probably helped the RPI as much as a home win might have. (or at least it is close).

 

[HawkeyeNTexas]

yes...I agree... IF, WHAT IF, ETC....but you can't argue against home court advantage and playing ranked apponents at home early in the schedule. It builds confidence.

 

[theboat]

yes...I agree... IF, WHAT IF, ETC....but you can't argue against home court advantage and playing ranked apponents at home early in the schedule. It builds confidence.

I think this team needs adversity more than confidence. I think they built the confidence last year, which is why I would take them at home against just about anyone. They need to learn to do it away from home. I am hoping that those 2.5 road losses thus far will help carry them to victory on Sunday.

 

[HawkeyeNTexas]

I thought ISU was a better team last year and Iowa won. (At home) I thought Iowa was a better team this year and lost...(away)

 

[bcl20]

If we are good enough to beat top teams at home, we will beat top teams at home as we play a few, and it will show. If that does, indeed, happen, we'll be looking at a high ranking and a high seed. No reason really to play the "what if" game since we will have the opportunities that are being presented in the "what if" scenario.

 

[hawkinn3]

A Pomeroy study not too long ago that said if you play a team twice year (assuming one home and one away game), that you typically need to win by 13-15 point as the home team if you are expected to beat that same team on the road.

 

[WindsorHawk]

Our "statement" home games are coming soon enough.

 

[HawkeyeNTexas]

A Pomeroy study not too long ago that said if you play a team twice year (assuming one home and one away game), that you typically need to win by 13-15 point as the home team if you are expected to beat that same team on the road.

Interesting.

 

[WindsorHawk]

A Pomeroy study not too long ago that said if you play a team twice year (assuming one home and one away game), that you typically need to win by 13-15 point as the home team if you are expected to beat that same team on the road.

Then I'm glad we don't have to go to Nebraska and can't wait for Wisconsin to come to town.

 

[HawkeyeNTexas]

Wisconsin won another home game last night. What a shock.

 

[Linesetter]

Wisconsin won another home game last night. What a shock.

Wisky destroyed Illinois because they're good. Absolutely beat them down. This Wisconsin team can really score now too.

That makes what we did up there all the more impressive in my eyes now.

 

[clicheusername3]

Our "statement" home games are coming soon enough.

But will that really be a statement? We need to beat top 25 teams on the road to prove ourselves, right?

 

[hawkinn3]

Then I'm glad we don't have to go to Nebraska and can't wait for Wisconsin to come to town.

Just goes to show that home court (field rink etc.) is more important in college basketball than just about any other sport.

 

[ibahawkeye]

At this point the basketball season feels alot like the football season in terms of our losses being quality losses and the teams only having a combined 3 losses, and competing with the top notch teams but coming up just short of the signature win.

 

[HawkeyeNTexas]

But will that really be a statement? We need to beat top 25 teams on the road to prove ourselves, right?

You are exactly right. Easily could have won all 3 games they lost, but HAVE to win on the road. The OSU game would be a huge road victory and provide a "springboard" for the rest of the season.

 

[DaBears]

This team has played together for 4 years. Marble is a senior. This IS the best this team will get.

With the stellar recruits Fran has brought in -- Jok, Woodbury, JO -- next year is going to be miserable...

 

[DaBears]

What if Xavier held a 15 point lead and won?
What if we would to have had to play Kansas and lost?
What if ND had made a couple more threes and won?
What if ISU had made 70% of their FTs (team avg.), instead of only 55%?

Could potentially of had 6 losses.

 

[SnapBack]

But will that really be a statement? We need to beat top 25 teams on the road to prove ourselves, right?

Well, I don't think this is a yes or no answer. More hypothetical. If we lose to 3 top 5 teams on the road (OSU, MSU, WISC) and then beat them all at home, then no we don't have to. Because what other team will be ranked in the top 25 when we play them? Beating 3 top 5 (at least top 10) teams at home, does prove yourself. However, if we lost to 1 or 2 of those teams at home, we need to beat one of them on the road.

 

[bcl20]

But will that really be a statement? We need to beat top 25 teams on the road to prove ourselves, right?

Not really. Make the tournament (which would happen with winning home games) and win tournament games. In that situation we totes be proven.