Villanova kicking butt and taking names...

[1977Hawkeye]

Hard to say we won the 2nd half. We were out so much by the 1st half that teams often pull back the reigns & play a completely different style to use clock. So, it's hard to really gauge or say Iowa won the 2nd half. If a close game, Villanova may have kept the foot on the pedal more. Who knows.

Iowa got trucked in the game. That's all that really matters.

Yep. Saying we won the second half is straight out of the Dan McCarney post-game presser guide. How about winning the first half?

Nova was up 34 on us early in the 2nd half.. There's no way they were going to keep playing at the same level of intensity the entire 40 minutes, so sure, Iowa shaved some points off the lead. That'll happen in a blowout.

 

[Seth53]

Not to overstate the obvious, play better down the regular season stretch and we don't draw a team like Nova in the 2nd round.

Geeze 1977! Stop it already with the facts.

I've always said, "Don't let facts get in the way of a logical decision."

 

[MelroseHawkins]

Yep. Saying we won the second half is straight out of the Dan McCarney post-game presser guide. How about winning the first half?

Nova was up 34 on us early in the 2nd half.. There's no way they were going to keep playing at the same level of intensity the entire 40 minutes, so sure, Iowa shaved some points off the lead. That'll happen in a blowout.

Exactly, I don't know the 'nova roster all that well or what their rotation is, but I don know they are in a six game tourney to win it all. This after a conference tourney. I presume they pull back a bit to at least try to rest players not just physically, but also mentally. These huge point difference wins may benefit them quite a bit moving on, with being able to rest players at their choice.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

Not to overstate the obvious, play better down the regular season stretch and we don't draw a team like Nova in the 2nd round.

It didn't matter. You think Iowa could have beaten any of these teams still playing to get to the Sweet 16?? IMOmIowa wouldn't have beaten any of them!!

Kansas- No a chance
Maryland - No way lost once
Nova- lol
Miami-Nope
Duke- Nope
Oregon- Not a Chance
Texas A&M- Nope
Oklahoma- Not a chance
UNC- Not a chance
Indiana- Lost Twice and Not a Chance
Notre Dame- Nope lost Once
Wisconsin- Be torched by Kaeding lost once
Virginia- No way
Iowa State- Nope
Syracuse- that Zone would melt us! No way
Gonzaga- lol Not a chance! The Iowa State v Virginia Winner is praying Cuse upsets the Zags!

Iowa is 0-6 against those teams they've played in Sweet 16

 

[Seth53]

It didn't matter. You think Iowa could have beaten any of these teams still playing to get to the Sweet 16?? IMOmIowa wouldn't have beaten any of them!!

Kansas- No a chance
Maryland - No way lost once
Nova- lol
Miami-Nope
Duke- Nope
Oregon- Not a Chance
Texas A&M- Nope
Oklahoma- Not a chance
UNC- Not a chance
Indiana- Lost Twice and Not a Chance
Notre Dame- Nope lost Once
Wisconsin- Be torched by Kaeding lost once
Virginia- No way
Iowa State- Nope
Syracuse- that Zone would melt us! No way
Gonzaga- lol Not a chance! The Iowa State v Virginia Winner is praying Cuse upsets the Zags!

Iowa is 0-6 against those teams they've played in Sweet 16

You're ignoring the butterfly effect.

Iowa wins a few more, different seeding for everyone, different brackets for everyone. None of this happens.
And if they're playing better, yes, they could likely have beaten a few of them, like they would have in January.

Would-if's are nice radio talking points. They just lack any validity.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

You're ignoring the butterfly effect.

Iowa wins a few more, different seeding for everyone, different brackets for everyone. None of this happens.
And if they're playing better, yes, they could likely have beaten a few of them, like they would have in January.

Would-if's are nice radio talking points. They just lack any validity.

Wouldn't of mattered!! We got the weakest 10 seed of them all be happy with the 1 W and barely won that game!

 

[1977Hawkeye]

It didn't matter. You think Iowa could have beaten any of these teams still playing to get to the Sweet 16?? IMOmIowa wouldn't have beaten any of them!!

Kansas- No a chance
Maryland - No way lost once
Nova- lol
Miami-Nope
Duke- Nope
Oregon- Not a Chance
Texas A&M- Nope
Oklahoma- Not a chance
UNC- Not a chance
Indiana- Lost Twice and Not a Chance
Notre Dame- Nope lost Once
Wisconsin- Be torched by Kaeding lost once
Virginia- No way
Iowa State- Nope
Syracuse- that Zone would melt us! No way
Gonzaga- lol Not a chance! The Iowa State v Virginia Winner is praying Cuse upsets the Zags!

Iowa is 0-6 against those teams they've played in Sweet 16

If Iowa finishes the season better, they earn a higher seed and wouldn't be playing most of those teams in the 2nd round.

And yes, if Iowa was playing well, they could have beaten the other lower seeded teams you mentioned.

You're assuming that because Iowa lost the first meeting, that it's impossible for them to win a rematch. That's flawed logic.

Do you also think Michigan State couldn't beat Iowa in a rematch? We smoked them twice, remember. So by your logic, they shouldn't bother playing the game.

 

[Hawk5656]

If Iowa finishes the season better, they earn a higher seed and wouldn't be playing most of those teams in the 2nd round.

And yes, if Iowa was playing well, they could have beaten the other lower seeded teams you mentioned.

So Iowa barely lost in Ames back in December... That means you think Iowa couldn't beat ISU because we lost to them once? Agree to disagree.

Do you also think Michigan State couldn't beat Iowa in a rematch? We smoked them twice, remember. So by your logic, they shouldn't bother playing the game.

We could barely beat a bad Temple team. I think all the poster was saying is we were not playing good basketball at the end of the year so it didn't seem likely we would beat any of the remaining teams

 

[1977Hawkeye]

We could barely beat a bad Temple team. I think all the poster was saying is we were not playing good basketball at the end of the year so it didn't seem likely we would beat any of the remaining teams

You guys are missing my point.

This is based on a scenario where if Iowa had kept playing well and gotten a higher seed, instead of falling apart.

 

[Stanzi]

Sure we may have drawn a good 2 seed but we had couldnt have asked for a better matchup in the first round and likely wouldn't have been playing a 2nd game with a different matchup.

Temple was was a better draw than any other of the 10 seeds and even some higher seeds like Witchita St, Iona or Steven F Austin and probably even others.

Iona? Uh, no, not even close. That is a bad team who only got in the tourney because they won't their terrible conference's tourney.

 

[HawkPrdatr40]

You guys are missing my point.

This is based on a scenario where if Iowa had kept playing well and gotten a higher seed, instead of falling apart.

Fact is Iowa wasn't so what is the point??

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Fact is Iowa wasn't so what is the point??

Sigh...

POINT: Have a better regular season so that you aren't playing a 1-2 seed in the 2nd round.

If we didn't discuss what-if scenarios, etc. and just said "Iowa lost 87-68" and closed the book, then there wouldn't be much to talk about.

 

[Seth53]

Sigh...

POINT: Have a better regular season so that you aren't playing a 1-2 seed in the 2nd round.

If we didn't discuss what-if scenarios, etc. and just said "Iowa lost 87-68" and closed the book, then there wouldn't be much to talk about.

Damnit 77, enough with the logic.

You're forcing me to have to pay a bit more attention to your posts.

Good stuff.

 

[trj]

I feel a little better now, Miami was a dark horse to get to the final 4 by many so called experts. I live in central Iowa so the UNI debacle was what everyone was talking about so iowa crapping the bed went under the radar. At least in my circle anyway.

 

[NEIChawk]

Oh UNI. Still haunts me. I've never seen such a deal in all my 54 years. I'm 30 miles north and people are still bringing that collapse up....oy-ve

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Damnit 77, enough with the logic.

You're forcing me to have to pay a bit more attention to your posts.

Good stuff.

I've been thinking about this quit a bit since Sunday, and wondering why Iowa can't make the Sweet 16 more than it has. Well, if you look at the 1991 Tournament through the present, we've been in the 7-10 seed range the vast majority of appearances. That's really all the explanation you need right there. Of course, that means that Iowa just hasn't had many Sweet 16 caliber teams, but that's not where you want to be if you want a realistic shot of surviving the first weekend.

2006 was a rare exception, when we were a 3 seed but coughed it up against NWST.

Iowa was a 4 in 1993, and a 5 in 1999. They split the second round games those two years, which seems reasonable since the 4/5 games are basically a coin flip. If Iowa could even be at least a 5 seed more often, I'm sure we'd see more Sweet 16's.

WHY we haven't been able to seed higher is for another discussion, but it's not a huge leap to go from a 7 to a 5 - although your odds of making it to the round of 16 have to go up considerably.

 

[Seth53]

I've been thinking about this quit a bit since Sunday, and wondering why Iowa can't make the Sweet 16 more than it has. Well, if you look at the 1991 Tournament through the present, we've been in the 7-10 seed range the vast majority of appearances. That's really all the explanation you need right there. Of course, that means that Iowa just hasn't had many Sweet 16 caliber teams, but that's not where you want to be if you want a realistic shot of surviving the first weekend.

2006 was a rare exception, when we were a 3 seed but coughed it up against NWST.

Iowa was a 4 in 1993, and a 5 in 1999. They split the second round games those two years, which seems reasonable since the 4/5 games are basically a coin flip. If Iowa could even be at least a 5 seed more often, I'm sure we'd see more Sweet 16's.

WHY we haven't been able to seed higher is for another discussion, but it's not a huge leap to go from a 7 to a 5 - although your odds of making it to the round of 16 have to go up considerably.

Agree with this.

I said as much in my Wisconsin BB thread/rant. Wisky has had better regular seasons, thus better NCAA seedings, thus better results. For a very long time. Longer than most can accurately remember.

They also don't p!ss down their pants with senior-laden squads, but that's another argument.

Some argue I'm dumb of course, but it's OK, facts is facts as they say.

 

[1977Hawkeye]

Agree with this.

I said as much in my Wisconsin BB thread/rant. Wisky has had better regular seasons, thus better NCAA seedings, thus better results. For a very long time. Longer than most can accurately remember.

They also don't p!ss down their pants with senior-laden squads, but that's another argument.

Some argue I'm dumb of course, but it's OK, facts is facts as they say.

Absolutely. You're obviously going to run into a high seed at some point in the tournament, but if you get a better seed, that won't be until at least the Sweet 16.

One thing I think we can all agree on: Iowa simply needs to be better if they want to do better than a 7 seed.

Iowa showed flashes this year, and two years ago - just still looking for consistency.

 

[Seth53]

Absolutely. You're obviously going to run into a high seed at some point in the tournament, but if you get a better seed, that won't be until at least the Sweet 16.

One thing I think we can all agree on: Iowa simply needs to be better if they want to do better than a 7 seed.

Iowa showed flashes this year, and two years ago - just still looking for consistency.

But see, that's the rub about Iowa's program.

Our sustainable zenith is about 4th in the conf, 5-7 NCAA seeding and an opening round NCAA win.

Followed by an NCAA loss to a higher seed.

We're still relevant, respected, and a class program.

But we're not elite. Oh, once in awhile we'll spurt to an elite-8 game, or a final four showing, but rarely. All borne from the lack of season-consistency.

And that's OK. People have to accept it's what we are. (Same for FB, but that's another topic for another thread).

 

[1977Hawkeye]

But see, that's the rub about Iowa's program.

Our sustainable zenith is about 4th in the conf, 5-7 NCAA seeding and an opening round NCAA win.

Followed by an NCAA loss to a higher seed.

We're still relevant, respected, and a class program.

But we're not elite. Oh, once in awhile we'll spurt to an elite-8 game, or a final four showing, but rarely. All borne from the lack of season-consistency.

And that's OK. People have to accept it's what we are. (Same for FB, but that's another topic for another thread).

Oh I agree - it's just been a long time since we've had one of those "spurts" that you mentioned.

And the consistency that I was referring to was mainly within a given season. I suppose you could say I'm talking about avoiding a big melt down when things are looking promising. I always figured Iowa would lose a couple games down the stretch this year, but didn't expect 7 out of the last 10.