Task #1 for Fran and Staff

[ssckelley]

oops, sorry...I did not even read this thread before posting mine on next years non conference schedule.

 

[okeefe4prez]

Schedule MTSU or Belmont in a home and home series starting next year.

Look - if all it takes is a few games against what are supposedly good teams in a conference then get it done. Go to Nashville and wipe the floor with these two teams and show them what the Big10 is all about. There shouldn't be a team in the country that Fran should fear for next year.

I understand why our schedule was vanilla this year and in all honesty I would have scheduled it the exact same way. We have a young team that needed to learn how to win. We had two starting Freshman coming into the year and Fran knew it ahead of time. Let the kids get some wins under their belt and then hopefully get a few signature wins in the Big10. Guess what? We were close on at least 5 wins in the conference had it not been for under 5 minute melt downs. Those melt downs won't happen next year.

The selection committee has spoken. Get the mid-majors on your schedule and play them away from home.

I have a better idea - why don't we play the crap teams from the BCS conferences, like Boston College, Vanderbilt, USC, etc. and the decent local Missouri Valley teams? I don't want MTSU et al to piggy back off of our RPI next year so they can lose to us by 20 and puff up their RPI in the process. If a crap conference is going to put 5 teams into the tourney, I'd rather see those teams be teams like Bradley and UNI from the Mo Valley instead of whatever crapbag teams came out of the Mountain West.

 

[ssckelley]

I have a better idea - why don't we play the crap teams from the BCS conferences, like Boston College, Vanderbilt, USC, etc. and the decent local Missouri Valley teams? I don't want MTSU et al to piggy back off of our RPI next year so they can lose to us by 20 and puff up their RPI in the process. If a crap conference is going to put 5 teams into the tourney, I'd rather see those teams be teams like Bradley and UNI from the Mo Valley instead of whatever crapbag teams came out of the Mountain West.

A team like Middle Tennessee State would have been scary this year and a home court loss is disastrous, but next season they should be able to play these kinds of teams and beat them especially at home. But you will not get teams from the other power 6 conferences unless Iowa agrees to a home & away. Iowa needs better games in Carver against beatable low majors that do not end up at the bottom of their conference. As my other thread pointed out Iowa will potentially have 6 decent teams on next seasons non conference schedule, the Alaska tournament should really help Iowa. They already have a home/away with Iowa State, ACC Challenge, and a neutral court game with UNI/Drake. Honestly that should be enough, Iowa can afford a couple of warm up games against bad low majors but not against 7 of them.

 

[WindsorHawk]

How well did this philosophy work for Purdue who also had a young team? The scheduled in that 100-200 range and a few more BCS opponents and came out with a 6-6 record. After somehow finishing with an 8-10 record, the same as IL and Minny and only one game back from Iowa they not only were left out of the big dance (not even mentioned) but they did not get a bid to the NIT. They beat IL at home and Wisky away so they had a couple of nice wins. Their resume looked a lot like the Iowa resume the year before with Gatens.

So before we question the Fran strategy completely keep in mind you do have to win games when you are in a power 6 conference. It will not help entirely to schedule losses.

The real key is how the mid-major conferences are skirting the system by scheduling non D-1 opponents and being rewarded for it in RPI as pointed out by John and others. Why KenPom, BPI and other statistical metrics are not being used to give a full picture of teams is the question that media should be questioning given the loopholes and failings of the RPI.

Good post.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

How well did this philosophy work for Purdue who also had a young team? The scheduled in that 100-200 range and a few more BCS opponents and came out with a 6-6 record. After somehow finishing with an 8-10 record, the same as IL and Minny and only one game back from Iowa they not only were left out of the big dance (not even mentioned) but they did not get a bid to the NIT. They beat IL at home and Wisky away so they had a couple of nice wins. Their resume looked a lot like the Iowa resume the year before with Gatens.

So before we question the Fran strategy completely keep in mind you do have to win games when you are in a power 6 conference. It will not help entirely to schedule losses.

The real key is how the mid-major conferences are skirting the system by scheduling non D-1 opponents and being rewarded for it in RPI as pointed out by John and others. Why KenPom, BPI and other statistical metrics are not being used to give a full picture of teams is the question that media should be questioning given the loopholes and failings of the RPI.

Good post, but I will say that next year's Iowa team should be significantly better than this year's Purdue team, and thus able to handle a schedule like that reasonably well.

I also think it's stupid that a team can schedule a non-D1 opponent, the RPI does not consider this, and apparently, neither does the committee. Pretty big loophole there. But as long as it's there - Iowa should take advantage of that, too. Want a couple warm up games in your non-conference? Go ahead and schedule a couple D2 teams, then. Apparently the RPI will be none the wiser.

 

[dmShortSaledude]

Agree, but you don't need a 300+ team to do that if the starters do their job to begin with.

This. We just need to keep the cupcakes in the 220 or above range. It is not that difficult. Look at the MWC, they played nobody about the top 50 and won, yet they get teams in the tourney because they don't schedule the really low RPI teams. Yet they have schedules filled with cupcakes. Smart.

 

[SpecialKHawk]

This. We just need to keep the cupcakes in the 220 or above range. It is not that difficult. Look at the MWC, they played nobody about the top 50 and won, yet they get teams in the tourney because they don't schedule the really low RPI teams. Yet they have schedules filled with cupcakes. Smart.

The moutain west also played non D-1 teams like Walla-Walla and Corban.

 

[WindsorHawk]

Good post, but I will say that next year's Iowa team should be significantly better than this year's Purdue team, and thus able to handle a schedule like that reasonably well.

I also think it's stupid that a team can schedule a non-D1 opponent, the RPI does not consider this, and apparently, neither does the committee. Pretty big loophole there. But as long as it's there - Iowa should take advantage of that, too. Want a couple warm up games in your non-conference? Go ahead and schedule a couple D2 teams, then. Apparently the RPI will be none the wiser.

I think OP was comparing our young team this year to Purdue's young team this year. Our schedule allowed us to make the NIT. Purdue didn't even manage the NIT and was only 1 game behind us...just clarifying.

 

[HawkeyeMHA]

Jesus h, anyone for the cliff notes for this thread? Keep it simple doofers

 

[PackHawk]

How well did this philosophy work for Purdue who also had a young team? The scheduled in that 100-200 range and a few more BCS opponents and came out with a 6-6 record. After somehow finishing with an 8-10 record, the same as IL and Minny and only one game back from Iowa they not only were left out of the big dance (not even mentioned) but they did not get a bid to the NIT. They beat IL at home and Wisky away so they had a couple of nice wins. Their resume looked a lot like the Iowa resume the year before with Gatens.

So before we question the Fran strategy completely keep in mind you do have to win games when you are in a power 6 conference. It will not help entirely to schedule losses.

The real key is how the mid-major conferences are skirting the system by scheduling non D-1 opponents and being rewarded for it in RPI as pointed out by John and others. Why KenPom, BPI and other statistical metrics are not being used to give a full picture of teams is the question that media should be questioning given the loopholes and failings of the RPI.

I think the difference is talent. We SHOULD do better because we clearly have a better team. Next years team could be Sweet 16 talent.

 

[Tierney]

I think the difference is talent. We SHOULD do better because we clearly have a better team. Next years team could be Sweet 16 talent.

I think the number 1 task for Fran and staff is a probably a tie between developing the players they have now, and recruiting for 2014. I doubt they will take either one lightly or whatever else it may be.