Villanova's championship does not vindicate in any way Iowa's loss to them

S

STLhawkeye20

Well-Known Member
Villanova winning the championship doesn't mitigate Iowa's poor performance against them in the NCAA Tournament because the problem is the fact that we were playing them in the first place. All of Iowa's problems stem from late season collapses. Take care of business at the end of the season (i.e. beat the bottom-feeders of the Big Ten, not too much to ask) and get a seed higher than a 6 or 7 and avoid second round where we don't have a chance.

That's it. Take care of business and we're playing in Des Moines and Villanova (or Gonzaga from last year) isn't even a factor until the Final Four/Elite Eight.
 
what would you have said had iowa not had the 'hail mary' type finish to beat temple? need a 1 seed to win a game? i just don't think iowa was nearly as good as they were hyped to be - got lucky to catch MSU early - and they got bounced early as did much of the big ten.
 
Iowa caught a rotten deal with the 2 chippy fouls called on Anthony Clemmons. Iowa played them even except for the time he was sitting with those fouls.

Iowa also had a resume equal to getting a 5 seed. Iowa had more quality wins than the teams that got the seeded at 5 and 6. I think that Iowa would have had a good chance at getting into the sweet 16 with momentum had they not been under seated. Even Temple was underrated, they played better than many gave them credit for.
 
Most of the time making the sweet sixteen is a matter of seating. Going to the elite eight or final four requires winning or tying for a conference championship usually. Until Iowa wins or ties for the conference championship it isn't going beyond the second round. If you look back at the Big Ten champion in NCAA tournament play the conference champion almost always reaches the elite eight. After that it becomes a matter of beating other conference champions. It isn't an absolute but it is pretty close to the truth most years.

For some, making the NCAA tournament is the ultimate goal of every season. It is time to rethink that notion. If you can win the regular season championship of the Big Ten your play in the NCAA tournament will take care of itself. The fact that Villanova won the tournament is not a vindication for Iowa, it can be used as a measuring stick for the program. The Iowa team that watched from the bench or are returning next year can benefit by having observed and competed against Villanova. Iowa coaches can also learn from the experience. Can the Iowa fans?
 
i-admire-your-commitment-to-beating-a-dead-horse-d8ccf.png
 
The coaches seem to disagree with you, Stl. They voted Iowa #25 in the final poll and I think the fact that Nova won the title and blew out Miami and Oklahoma worse than Iowa, probably allowed Iowa to eke out the 25th spot.
 
STLhawkeye20 said:
Villanova winning the championship doesn't mitigate Iowa's poor performance against them in the NCAA Tournament because the problem is the fact that we were playing them in the first place. All of Iowa's problems stem from late season collapses. Take care of business at the end of the season (i.e. beat the bottom-feeders of the Big Ten, not too much to ask) and get a seed higher than a 6 or 7 and avoid second round where we don't have a chance.

That's it. Take care of business and we're playing in Des Moines and Villanova (or Gonzaga from last year) isn't even a factor until the Final Four/Elite Eight.
Click to expand...


Slow down Negative Nancy. It absolutely matters that Iowa lost to them. Now, it sure doesn't make us feel any better because yes, like you said, we should have more games down the stretch to get a better seed to avoid a team like that in the second round... BUT the way Iowa lost to them DOES matter. People (myself included) were so mad at the way that game transpired. I think the way Nova dominated every opponent they played in the tournament showed how well they were playing. It showed that Iowa might not have actually played that bad... but that Nova played just that well. Even in the title game, they shot 58% !!!!! Like you do realize Iowa got spanked by them the same way Miami and Oklahoma did? And they beat 2 number 1 seeds including KU the overall 1 seed. So, yeah it does matter that we lost to the National Champions. THEY WERE VERY GOOD.
 
Mixed feelings. Villanova obviously peaked at the right time and were steamrolling almost everyone they played. The only close games they had were against the two #1 seeds that they ejected from the tournament. So from that perspective, it does take a little bit of the sting out of Iowa's blowout loss to them. A little.

Thing is, none of this changes the fact that Iowa played very poorly the last several games. When you lose 6 of your final 8 regular season games, including losses to teams like Illinois and Penn State, you have bigger problems than the fact that you got stuck playing the eventual champ in the 2nd round - Iowa would have had a lot of trouble getting to the Sweet 16 against just about anyone they would have faced.
 
Why a new thread? This fits within a dozen other threads on here. It's about time to step away until next October. The grumbling/trolling is getting bad and will only get worse. It looks like some posters are simply cutting a pasting the same post into every thread...changing 2 or 3 words.
 
ClintonIAfan said:
Iowa caught a rotten deal with the 2 chippy fouls called on Anthony Clemmons. Iowa played them even except for the time he was sitting with those fouls.

Iowa also had a resume equal to getting a 5 seed. Iowa had more quality wins than the teams that got the seeded at 5 and 6. I think that Iowa would have had a good chance at getting into the sweet 16 with momentum had they not been under seated. Even Temple was underrated, they played better than many gave them credit for.
Click to expand...

Didn't Clemmons pick up his second foul before the first media timeout? Spin it how you want, but that game was a bloodbath. I don't think it'd have made much difference if Clemmons was in the game or not.

The game was tied at 13 with 13:24 to go in the first half.. It was all Nova after that.
 
I don't think it vindicates anything about Iowa's season in any way but you can't take away the fact that they played a team that no one was gonna beat in the tourney. Them the breaks, it doesn't validate anything for Iowa in hindsight what so ever but what does a team that was picked 9th place or higher in most pre-season predictions and was considered a borderline bubble team that greatly exceeded expectations need vindication for?
 
It was tied until he picked up the second, and Iowa gain ground in the second half after he returned. It is more than just a coincidence. The game plan depended heavily on his defense and ball handling. Still Iowa played them closer than Miami or Oklahoma did. I would like to have seen what could have been.
 
ClintonIAfan said:
It was tied until he picked up the second, and Iowa gain ground in the second half after he returned. It is more than just a coincidence. The game plan depended heavily on his defense and ball handling. Still Iowa played them closer than Miami or Oklahoma did. I would like to have seen what could have been.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone was going to beat this Nova team. They were (playing) better than us at every position IMO. They played with confidence; with purpose; and like a team on a mission. I had hoped that's how we would play but we didn't and I don't think it would have mattered if we had.

Edit - This is not a knock on Iowa. It's a compliment to Nova.
 
Still higher seated teams lost to them by more. So that is why the result of the game does not change my opinion that Iowa was under-seeded.
 
Last edited:
Iowa was exactly what their seed (#7) and final ranking (#25) indicated. A good team that made it to the second round (final 32) but not good enough to be in the final 16. Look at their final record (22-11) in three buckets:

Against teams that did not make the NCAA tournament: 14-3
Against teams in the NCAA tournament that lost first weekend: 8-1
Against teams that made it to the sweet 16 and beyond: 0-7

All of this points to Iowa being good against teams outside of the top 16 and not on the same level as the elite programs in the country. Hopefully that changes, but it wasn't going to happen this year.
 
JRD90 said:
Iowa was exactly what their seed (#7) and final ranking (#25) indicated. A good team that made it to the second round (final 32) but not good enough to be in the final 16. Look at their final record (22-11) in three buckets:

Against teams that did not make the NCAA tournament: 14-3
Against teams in the NCAA tournament that lost first weekend: 8-1
Against teams that made it to the sweet 16 and beyond: 0-7

All of this points to Iowa being good against teams outside of the top 16 and not on the same level as the elite programs in the country. Hopefully that changes, but it wasn't going to happen this year.
Click to expand...

Good info.

Folks, this is our zenith. Our best sustainable zenith. History supports as much:

Upper division B1G regular season finish
B1G tourney....it's window dressing, doesn't really matter
5-7 NCAA seed
One NCAA win. Two wins obtainable but rarely. Elite-8/Final-4....twice since 1980....you can do the math.

Respectable program. Not elite, not dog-crap. Has dignity and respect.

It's our zenith. Could be worse, probably will never be sustainabley better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top