Was Iowa Snubbed By NCAA Selection Committee?

[DDThompson]

Badger... first off, I'm an I-State fan, so take this for what it's worth.

What teams from the "last four in" meet the criteria you lay out above for Iowa. MTSU? Who did they beat on a neutral court... let alone away? St. Mary's? Same question... Point is that there is a serious double standard going on here with the "mid majors" and power conference teams.

I'd argue that there is no way in Hell MTSU is even IN the conversation had they played Iowa's schedule. Hawk fans on here keep saying, "if we'd have just held on to leads against MSU, etc... we'd be in. Yes. I agree. But the fact remains that MTSU and teams like them DIDN'T EVEN NEED to do close to that! They'd have never had the freaking lead in the first place.

The mid major plan of playing 3 or 4 good teams OOC and getting rolled, then going 17-1 in your high school conference is not fair. Yea Iowa didn't play most of the best B10 teams twice... so freaking what? They still had to play the best teams. That's better than St. Mary's can say.

The system isn't fair... and I say that as a person that is far from a fan of the Hawks.

Well done pointing out a huge flaw in the selection criteria. All this talk about strong OOC schedule is pathetic when compared to weak conference schedules.

How does two or three "tough" opponents in the OOC of mid-majors carry more weight than 2 or 3 "tough" opponents in power 6 OOC schedules PLUS the 6-10 "tough" conference games.

Crazy.

But the answer to the question is still "No"

 

[activebadger]

Badger... first off, I'm an I-State fan, so take this for what it's worth.

What teams from the "last four in" meet the criteria you lay out above for Iowa. MTSU? Who did they beat on a neutral court... let alone away? St. Mary's? Same question... Point is that there is a serious double standard going on here with the "mid majors" and power conference teams.

I'd argue that there is no way in Hell MTSU is even IN the conversation had they played Iowa's schedule. Hawk fans on here keep saying, "if we'd have just held on to leads against MSU, etc... we'd be in. Yes. I agree. But the fact remains that MTSU and teams like them DIDN'T EVEN NEED to do close to that! They'd have never had the freaking lead in the first place.

The mid major plan of playing 3 or 4 good teams OOC and getting rolled, then going 17-1 in your high school conference is not fair. Yea Iowa didn't play most of the best B10 teams twice... so freaking what? They still had to play the best teams. That's better than St. Mary's can say.

The system isn't fair... and I say that as a person that is far from a fan of the Hawks.

If you don't think there is quality play in the lower conferences then you haven't been paying attention for the last 10 years or even longer. Just because the names in those conferences like MTSU's aren't familiar to you doesn't mean there isn't quality play going on in those leagues. Gonzaga, VCU, Butler, Saint Louis, and scores of other teams in the non-power conferences have closed the gap between the power conferences and that has been going on for years now. Thinking play in those divisions is vastly inferior is an outdated line of thinking. Is the BIG better? Of course it is but it's not as wide as you probably think. You have a coach that coached at Siena, a non-power conference school. You should know better. Wisconsin has a coach that is from a Division III program that is doing things that have never been done in the league. Basketball is basketball.

Middle Tennessee eviscerated their competition in that league and really only have 1-bad loss on the season. You shared a common opponent (Western Kentucky) which MTSU handled rather easily.

They lost to Florida (an excellent team) and Belmont (a underseeded NCAA tourney team). What would Iowa have done given the same schedule? Who knows but I don't look at each of their resumes' and say Iowa DEFINITELY has a superior resume.

Lastly I think Middle Tennessee was the last team that made the tournament so we're not talking about a team that is flawless here.

 

[DDThompson]

Middle Tennessee State's schedule: A daunting schedule indeed and worthy of a 25 RPI ranking. Anyone think that 1-8 in the B1G couldn't eviscerate that schedule? Didn't think so.

Iowa lost to Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Indiana which trumps MTS's Florida game. But MTS gets props for losing to Florida.

Iowa beat Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa State which should more than cover MTS's phenomenal win against Ole Miss.

There is no comparison in schedules. Iowa played a weak non-conference. Can't be denied. But the Sun Belt conference schedule isn't much rougher than Iowa's OOC and it certainly couldn't stand the heat of the B1G Conference schedule.

Alabama State
@ Savannah State
v. Florida LOST
@Central Florida
Texas Southern
@ UL-Lafayette
@ Akron LOST
UAB
Ole Miss WIN
@ Belmont LOST
Tennessee State
v. Vanderbilt
Florida International
North Texas
@ Arkansas State LOST
@ South Alabama
Florida Atlantic
@UL-Monroe
UALR
UL-Lafayette
@North Texas
Western Kentucky
@Florida International
@Florida Atlantic
Arkansas State
Troy
@UALR
S.Alabama
UL-Monroe
@Troy
@Western Kentucky
v. UL-Lafayette
v. Florida International LOST



Yellowsnow is right. If MTS plays Iowa's schedule, they are nowhere near the bubble. And if Iowa plays MTS conference schedule as their out-of-conference schedule, they are not in.

 

[RocknRollface]

If you don't think there is quality play in the lower conferences then you haven't been paying attention for the last 10 years or even longer. Just because the names in those conferences like MTSU's aren't familiar to you doesn't mean there isn't quality play going on in those leagues. Gonzaga, VCU, Butler, Saint Louis, and scores of other teams in the non-power conferences have closed the gap between the power conferences and that has been going on for years now. Thinking play in those divisions is vastly inferior is an outdated line of thinking. Is the BIG better? Of course it is but it's not as wide as you probably think. You have a coach that coached at Siena, a non-power conference school. You should know better. Wisconsin has a coach that is from a Division III program that is doing things that have never been done in the league. Basketball is basketball.

Middle Tennessee eviscerated their competition in that league and really only have 1-bad loss on the season. You shared a common opponent (Western Kentucky) which MTSU handled rather easily.

They lost to Florida (an excellent team) and Belmont (a underseeded NCAA tourney team). What would Iowa have done given the same schedule? Who knows but I don't look at each of their resumes' and say Iowa DEFINITELY has a superior resume.

Lastly I think Middle Tennessee was the last team that made the tournament so we're not talking about a team that is flawless here.

This is an incoherent argument. All the same reasons given for Iowa, Tennessee Virginia not getting in were present with the last 4 mid majors, and infact they played far less competition and did not beat anyone at all. Period.

According to the criteria none of the last 4 in deserve a bid, that is the truth (acording to the PRI).

The truth is the mid majors get in because they are mid majors and the tournament wants more mid majors because it makes things more interesting than watching slightly above average mid tier power conference teams. I know I could care less about seeing Virginia, Tennessee or Baylor even though I know they are most likely better than St Marrys, Lasalle Boise ect.

Outside of obviously wanting to see Iowa Id rather watch a mid major play a power conference team because the mathcup is something different than what I normally see.

 

[patmyne]

You guys are arguing the same points I've made all day. Ill take a stab at Jon's answer and he can correct me if I'm wrong.

Iowa was NOT snubbed, but was more deserving than the 4 that got in and the Rpi sucks..

 

[jmb]

You guys are arguing the same points I've made all day. Ill take a stab at Jon's answer and he can correct me if I'm wrong.

Iowa was NOT snubbed, but was more deserving than the 4 that got in and the Rpi sucks..

i would say they weren't snubbed...and they were snubbed. The earth is flat in that space. It is much like mma when you leave it up to judges the most non-sensical results can be delivered. I am convinced the nail that sealed Iowas fate was the nebbie loss. That loss put Iowa in a place that meant they no longer had more in than out. To close out properly they are in but forced instead their hand was forced into a spectacular run. With a young squad spectacular runs are tough.


When a case for and a "case against" can be made as well as a "case for" a team being in be tournament -that is a team in a struggle. Iowa was that team...the committee took risk skewed towards small teams. Should the hawks be in or out? The answer is : yes.

 

[cubbieman]

RPI is a joke. You can play DII teams and it doesn't effect your RPI. Boise played against to teams, Walla Walla and Corban and those two games did not effect their RPI. If Iowa would of exchange two of our higher RPI teams for this Iowa would be in. It's all how you play the system. With a flawed system that doesn't count all the teams you play, it shouldn't be in use.