IU needs to hold serve against RU on March 2, that's for sure, because on Saturday, Purdue will be hosting IU.....
RU closes out their reg season hosting PSU
ESPN Bracketology, Updated MARCH 13. IOWA is a 5 Seed in CHICAGO Regional. Bracket Matrix on MARCH 13 has IOWA a 5 Seed. #14 NET Ranking on March 13
- Thread starter Franisdaman
- Start date
IU needs to hold serve against RU on March 2, that's for sure, because on Saturday, Purdue will be hosting IU.....
RU closes out their reg season hosting PSU
Actually, the NET rankings have been around for 3 years now (since the 2018-2019 season).
So, contrary to what you wrote, "this list" of better Quad 2 and Quad 3 opponents to replace Quad 4 opponents would have existed in 2019, 2020, 2021, and of course, today.
So they had a crystal ball 3 years ago of what the NET rankings would look like this year?
I am surprised you are not aware when nonconference schedules are made. They are not made years in advance like football.
On June 1, 2021, there were still 5 openings yet to be filled in Iowa's 2021-2022
nonconference schedule.
On June 1, 2021, these were the 6 known Nonconference foes for 2021-2022:
1) Iowa State
2) Longwood
3) NC Central
4) Alabama State
5) SE Louisiana
6) Virginia (ACC/B1G Challenge)
Related Story:
I am surprised you are not aware when nonconference schedules are made. They are not made years in advance like football.
On June 1, 2021, there were still 5 openings yet to be filled in Iowa's 2021-2022
nonconference schedule.
On June 1, 2021, these were the 6 known Nonconference foes for 2021-2022:
1) Iowa State
2) Longwood
3) NC Central
4) Alabama State
5) SE Louisiana
6) Virginia (ACC/B1G Challenge)
Related Story:
So there were 4 games already set in stone, so on June 1st of last year Barta had yet to schedule games against Utah State (neutral site, Q2 game), Portland State, Western Michigan, UMKC, and Western Illinois. So Barta should have known what the NET ranking would be for those teams, of course all these other teams you want him to schedule are automatically available on the dates he's looking to fill, right?
Back on June 1st of last year nobody knew Iowa would be in this position they are today. Hindsight is always 20/20, I'm sure back then Fran wanted easy games so they could get this team gelling without getting challenged every single night. Iowa was predicted to be in the bottom half of the Big Ten. When the non conference was originally released I figured Iowa would go 9-2, I was hoping Iowa could win 9 games in the Big Ten to at least get on the bubble going into the BTT. Barta and Fran could have been looking at it the same way.
Another point to consider a 109-61 victory over a Western Michigan probably does more for the NET ranking than 10 point win over a decent Q3 opponent since offensive and defensive efficiency is factored into the NET. Heaven forbid Iowa would have lost to a Q3 opponent on their home court, which could have happened when the team is still figuring things out in the non conference. I remember Iowa struggled to beat NC Central, it was a 5 point game at the half.
Too lazy to look up Iowa's non-con schedule? Of the 11 teams Iowa played, 4 teams were in the 300's and of those 4, 2 of them moved into the high 200's as of today. Teams that have improved their RPI are Longwood jumped from 249 to 157, Iowa St jumped from 113 to 31, Utah St jumped from 95 to 57, UMKC jumped from 248 to 199. The only teams Iowa played that didn't get better was Alabama St 322, W. Mich 331, Portland St 280, and Virginia 78.
Fran had a team consisting of mostly sophomores, I expected this schedule before it even came out because of who they lost. Fran is known for this and of all people Franisdaman should know that Fran has lots of coaching friends that he values and is apt to schedule those teams to help them financially. This is how Fran works.
Would I love Iowa to improve their non-con schedule as Franisdaman has pointed out, you bet, but it ain't going to happen under Fran's watch.
In the first quarter of 2021, there was nothing set in stone, as you allege (excect for ISU & the ACC/B1G Challenge). So, they should have been on the phone then, seeing who's available.
And yes, Barta and Fran's staff would have known what the NET rankings were of potential nonconference opponents in early 2021 and they would have been able to project what the NET rankings of those potential opponents would be for the 2021-2022 season. It's their job to know these types of things.
On June 1, they still had 5 more nonconference opponents to finalize.
For some reason Iowa always schedules the worst of the worst when it comes to the nonconference. Fans have been very critical of this for years now. I just think Iowa can do better than eight Quad 4 home opponents. The fans sure as heck would appreciate it; heck those fans might even buy tickets and show up.
Last edited:
I would like to see us do a few home and home series with some decent teams like a Utah State or a UNC Greensboro. I know it would cost us some revenue when we play at their arena but maybe that is better than paying someone a big $$$ guarantee. Those type of Mid Majors don't want to come to CHA unless they get a return visit. At least Longwood turned out to be a good team.
Western Illinois doesn't look like the "worst of the worst", neither does Kansas City, and Utah State at a neutral site turned into a decent opponent from a NET stand point.
Fans will not show up any more for a matchup against Western Illinois than they will against a UAB, Missouri State, or Vermont. Stop making these strawman arguments. The only way to improve the games from that aspect would be to schedule Power 6 opponents and Iowa isn't going to give up home dates to do a Home and Away (which is what it would take to schedule those). The only other options to schedule games that would sell tickets are UNI or Drake and I'm sure that offer has been made.
I agree with your sentiment about home and homes. However, teams like Utah St are an absolute no.
If you look at kenpom’s home court advantage rating, there is a pretty big correlation between altitude and home court advantage. Teams in the mountain time zone are a non starter the way Iowa likes to run. That’d be poor scheduling.
But yes Iowa should be looking at scheduling home and homes with solid teams.
Yeah, bad example probably better to go East or stay in midwest. St. Louis might be good. We used to play them or maybe Witchita St.
Yea, this season's schedule was a bit light, but last season we played Gonzaga and North Carolina and didn't participate in the Gavitt Games. The year before we played Depaul, Oral Roberts, Texas Tech, San Diego St, Syracuse and Cincinnati. The year before that we played Oregon, UConn, Pitt and UNI. And each year we played Iowa St. I would say we played a decent schedule those seasons.
Iowa isn't going to give up home dates to schedule home and away with mid majors.
No worries. I was only thinking of the altitude thing because of what happened to fast paced Arizona at CU yesterday. Don’t want that for Iowa.
Yeah I know that is the way things have been but I am advocating for a change in philosophy.
KenPom has our nonconference schedule ranked #330 out of 358 teams, which easily counters your defense of who Iowa played this year in the non-conference.
And you thought our non-conference schedules were made years in advance, which is not true, either.
So it's pretty clear who is making the strawman arguments, and that would be you.
Especially not on the east or west coast........If their going that route they should shoot for schools like Creighton or Marquette, Xavier. I don't think we're doing a home and home with UNI after what happened the last time we played there, but I'd be Okay playing Drake. Decent program and a nice perk for all those Hawk fans in central Iowa.....
I was never making a case that the nonconference was strong. What I said was that the final 5 games they did schedule last summer were not the "worst of the worst".
So every game isn't set in stone years in advance, I'll concede that point even though I never meant to imply every game was but they don't wait until the summer before the season starts to schedule non conference games. My main point was that Fran & Barta cannot possibly predict the NET rankings of these non conference opponents, it doesn't matter if it's the summer before or years in advance. The summer before they might have a sense of how good or bad a team is but it's still impossible to predict
You must not know what a strawman argument is. You went from complaining about the schedule, gave examples of teams they could have schedule in Q2 and Q3 then said they'd sell more tickets scheduling these better teams in rebuttal to me. Iowa will not sell any more tickets to a game against UAB (Quad 2) than they will against Western Illinois.
Iowa used to schedule these games but stopped since they wanted more home dates. The more home games the more revenue and Drake & UNI wanted home and away. I'm sure Iowa would schedule them if they agreed to come to Carver every year.
You do not know for a fact that Iowa would NOT sell more tickets if they scheduled better nonconference opponents. But, it sure is worth a try to generate more fan interest AND, more importantly, for NCAA Tournament purposes, it would improve their nonconference schedule strength ranking. Why do you think we are #18 in the NET yet considered an 8 or 9 seed by so many? It's because of our WEAK nonconference schedule.
Your point that Fran & Barta cannot possibly predict the NET rankings of these non conference opponents is flat out wrong. You realize the range for Quad 4 home games is 161-358, right??? Therefore, it does not take a rocket scientist to know that 5 very bad opponents (SE Louisiana , NC Central, Portland State, Alabama State and Western Michigan) were going to be Quad 4 bad. And Iowa scheduled them anyway.
I am not sure how you or anyone can look at the 7 nonconference games that follow and not think we can do better.
And contrary to what you wrote, when you beat 5 of your nonconference opponents by at least 26 points, those 5 teams are most definitely the worst of the worst.
Quad 4:
Home: 161-358
Away: 241-358
7 Nonconference Quad 4 Wins
#197 UMKC (by 32 points)
#221 Western Illinois (by 21 points)
#276 SE Louisiana (by 31 points)
#282 NC Central (by 17 points)
#296 Portland State (by 34 points)
#316 Alabama State (by 26 points)
#336 Western Michigan (by 48 points)
This isn't all that difficult to figure out. Iowa put together a schedule that would more easily give it a path to having a winning overall record/be in a position for a NIT berth. I'm sure Fran and Co. thought that Keegan would be very good, but this good? And that Kr. Murray would make the jump that he did and the growth in several other unproven players? The downside to such a schedule is that if you are better than initially thought, you've put yourself in a spot where it's hard to make the resume look good.
You are correct that the lack of good non-conference opponents is going to hurt Iowa on Selection Sunday by probably 1-2 seed lines. The NET ranking should help put Iowa firmly in the tournament, but Iowa's meh resume when it comes to actually beating good teams is going to cost them, no doubt. Winning at Illinois or at Michigan. would certainly help, but just to a degree.
Northwestern would be a Quad 3 win.
But we have a couple Quad 1 opportunities coming up.
IOWA (#18 NET Ranking on Feb 28)
1-5: Quad 1
6-3: Quad 2
5-0: Quad 3
8-0: Quad 4
............................................
20-8 Overall Record
====================
The remaining road games:
March 3 at Michigan (Quad 1: Away vs 1-75)
March 6 at Illinois (Quad 1: Away vs 1-75)
The remaining home game:
Feb 28 Northwestern (Quad 3: Home vs 76-160)
Here are the Current NET Rankings, Through Feb 27, 2022 Games:
Rank..Previous..Record...Road..Neutral..Home..Quad1...Quad 2...Quad 3...Quad 4
But we have a couple Quad 1 opportunities coming up.
IOWA (#18 NET Ranking on Feb 28)
1-5: Quad 1
6-3: Quad 2
5-0: Quad 3
8-0: Quad 4
............................................
20-8 Overall Record
====================
The remaining road games:
March 3 at Michigan (Quad 1: Away vs 1-75)
March 6 at Illinois (Quad 1: Away vs 1-75)
The remaining home game:
Feb 28 Northwestern (Quad 3: Home vs 76-160)
Here are the Current NET Rankings, Through Feb 27, 2022 Games:
Rank..Previous..Record...Road..Neutral..Home..Quad1...Quad 2...Quad 3...Quad 4
| 12 | 12 | Purdue | Big Ten | 24-5 | 5-4 | 4-0 | 15-1 | 7-4 | 4-1 | 6-0 | 7-0 |
| 14 | 14 | Illinois | Big Ten | 20-8 | 7-4 | 2-1 | 11-3 | 5-5 | 6-3 | 5-0 | 4-0 |
| 18 | 19 | Iowa | Big Ten | 20-8 | 5-5 | 1-0 | 14-3 | 1-5 | 6-3 | 5-0 | 8-0 |
| 20 | 18 | Ohio St. | Big Ten | 18-8 | 5-6 | 1-1 | 12-1 | 5-5 | 4-3 | 6-0 | 3-0 |
| 21 | 21 | Wisconsin | Big Ten | 23-5 | 9-2 | 3-0 | 11-3 | 7-3 | 8-1 | 4-1 | 4-0 |
| 33 | 33 | Michigan St. | Big Ten | 19-9 | 5-4 | 3-2 | 11-3 | 4-6 | 6-2 | 5-1 | 4-0 |
| 37 | 34 | Michigan | Big Ten | 15-12 | 4-7 | 2-1 | 9-4 | 4-8 | 2-3 | 5-1 | 4-0 |
| 44 | 43 | Indiana | Big Ten | 18-10 | 3-7 | 1-0 | 14-3 | 3-6 | 3-4 | 4-0 | 8-0 |
| 80 | 80 | Northwestern | Big Ten | 12-14 | 3-7 | 1-1 | 8-6 | 1-9 | 2-3 | 2-2 | 7-0 |
| 83 | 84 | Rutgers | Big Ten | 16-12 | 3-9 | 0-0 | 13-3 | 5-5 | 3-4 | 2-2 | 6-1 |
| 90 | 96 | Maryland | Big Ten | 14-15 | 3-6 | 2-1 | 9-8 | 2-8 | 5-3 | 3-4 | 4-0 |
| 94 | 85 | Penn St. | Big Ten | 12-14 | 1-8 | 1-1 | 10-5 | 1-8 | 3-4 | 4-1 | 4-1 |
| 104 | 100 | Minnesota | Big Ten | 13-14 | 3-7 | 2-0 | 8-7 | 2-10 | 0-3 | 6-1 | 5-0 |
| 164 | 188 | Nebraska | Big Ten | 8-21 | 1-8 | 0-1 | 7-12 | 0-10 | 1-6 | 1-4 | 6-1 |
They’ve had schedules like this before. Typically happens when they have a lot of unknowns going into the season. Build up wins early, gain some confidence and hopefully put it together later in the Big Ten and get some quality wins and get yourself a bid to the dance. That approach has worked out this year
I would argue that if our KenPom nonconference Strength of Schedule were #230 instead of #330:
* We would have still been 10-1 in nonconference
* We'd probably be closer to a projected 5 seed (with that #18 NET ranking) as opposed to the projected 7 seed or worse (according to most on bracketmatrix.com)
Here’s something I don’t understand.
MSU loses a road game to Iowa, and plummets in the NET. They win a home game against Purdue, and barely move up.
Fvck you, NET.
I should add, since this will be taken literally. I understand there is a formula that explains this in black and white. It still seems stupid.
MSU loses a road game to Iowa, and plummets in the NET. They win a home game against Purdue, and barely move up.
Fvck you, NET.
I should add, since this will be taken literally. I understand there is a formula that explains this in black and white. It still seems stupid.
Last edited:
Stop with this, you know DAMN well Iowa would not sell anymore tickets against a Quad 2 or 3 mid major than a Quad 4. Come on now!
I‘m not even arguing against the bolder part.
lol, I am not “flat out wrong”. To expect Iowa to schedule every home opponent to be ranked above 161 is unreasonable.
Never once argued against this, all I said is that it’s easier said than done and you went off.
So by this definition if we beat an opponent by 26 points then they are the “worst of the worst”. Damn, wish Iowa wouldn’t have scheduled Michigan State! lol
You know winning by large margins does help the NET.
Every power 6 team in the country schedules these games. Purdue scheduled 6, Wisconsin and Illinois both scheduled 4. I’ll agree 7 is couple too many but it’s understandable with this years team, last year Iowa only scheduled 4 excluding Iowa State for obvious reasons. I don’t think Fran & Barta expected this team to do as well in conference.
At this point in the season a win or a loss doesn’t move the needle as much as margin of victory since it’s using offensive and defensive efficiency. I think losing by 26 to Iowa really hurt their NET.
Lol, you really think Fran built this schedule to optimize chances for the NIT? I don’t think you know Fran. The logical gymnastics some people will go through to validate their prejudice is impressive.
Fans always complaining about our schedule but what Fran did this year was perfect for this team. Built some confidence and experience and allowed him to experiment. And our seeding will not suffer. If we’d played better teams in December, we would have lost - see ISU, Purdue, Illinois. Losing doesn’t help your seed.
Quinnipiac (#358) had the worst nonconference schedule in the country.
Rutgers came in just one spot better, at #357. This is part of the reason why they are barely clinging to the bubble.
And, as discussed already, Iowa's #330 ranking is gonna cost them at least a couple spots in the NCAA tournament seedings. The #18 NET ranking would indicate they should be a 5 seed. We are projected, however, as a 7 or worse.
B1G Teams, Nonconference Strength of Schedules (per KenPom):
23 Michigan
54 Michigan State
95 Wisconsin
97 Ohio State
120 Illinois
187 Maryland
258 Penn State
262 Minnesota
264 Nebraska
284 Purdue
324 Indiana
330 Iowa
355 Northwestern
357 Rutgers
Yes, that is obviously the reason, but it’s not hard to point out there are some contradictions here.
There are still some glitches. That said, it beats the hell out of the RPI.
You know what could have had a dramatic impact on seeding? How about a better record than 1-5 Quad 1 wins and 6-3 Quad 2? I really don't see how replacing Quad 4 wins with Quad 3 wins is going to make a big impact.
Gonzaga, Arizona, Houston, Kentucky (NET 1 to 4) all have 8 or more Quad 4 wins ( the same as Iowa).
Last edited:
If it costs Iowa 1 or 2 seed lines, then no it wasn't perfect for this team. Reasonable people can disagree on that opinion. I get playing a couple of really terrible teams. I don't agree with playing 6-7 of them like Iowa did.
Fran deserves all the kudos that will come his way for the season when they end up making the NCAA tournament. He will have coached 4 straight tournament teams (assuming Iowa makes it here in 22). There was no tournament in 2020, but Iowa was in the tournament. Getting to 4 straight tournaments at Iowa is not given and has not happened since 1985-89.
Just wanted to show not a Fran-hater. One can respect the job he has done while still pointing items out. Who knows, this could be the team that makes it past the first weekend of the NCAA tournament. This team really seems to be together, can't put a price on that.
You are starting to repeat yourself, never have I made an argument that the SOS didn't play a small part in why Iowa isn't projected to get a better seed. But they are not on the bubble and I'd argue the biggest impact as to why they are projected to to be a 7/8 seed is because of their 1-5 record in Q1 games.
Contrary to what you wrote, if we replaced some of those AWFUL Quad 4 opponents with much better Quad 4 or Quad 3, it would most certainly have an impact on our seeding. After all, our #18 NET ranking would indicate Iowa should be a 5 seed. We are projected, however, as a 7 or worse. Our #330 ranked nonconference schedule has a lot to do with it.
Update from this morning:
Indiana and Rutgers are part of the last 4 in.
Michigan gets one of the last 4 byes.
Lunardi continues to have 9 B1G teams in the NCAA Tournament.
Seed/Team:
2 Purdue
3 Wisconsin
4 Illinois
Ohio State
IOWA
Michigan State
Michigan (gets 1 of the LAST 4 BYES)
Indiana (1 of the LAST 4 IN; in a Play in Game)
Rutgers (1 of the LAST 4 IN; in a Play in Game)
Indiana and Rutgers are part of the last 4 in.
Michigan gets one of the last 4 byes.
Lunardi continues to have 9 B1G teams in the NCAA Tournament.
Seed/Team:
2 Purdue
3 Wisconsin
4 Illinois
Ohio State
IOWA
Michigan State
Michigan (gets 1 of the LAST 4 BYES)
Indiana (1 of the LAST 4 IN; in a Play in Game)
Rutgers (1 of the LAST 4 IN; in a Play in Game)
I know the NET plays a large role, but how can Michigan remain in the field over teams like Oregon, Florida and Colorado? Michigan has barely beaten anybody and has 12 losses overall. Their win over Purdue at home is their best obviously, but after that they have wins over Iowa/Indiana and not much after that. They also lost to UCF and Minnesota. It seems the NET is a joke.Update from this morning:
Indiana and Rutgers are part of the last 4 in.
Michigan gets one of the last 4 byes.
Lunardi continues to have 9 B1G teams in the NCAA Tournament.
Seed/Team:
2 Purdue
3 Wisconsin
4 Illinois
Ohio State
IOWA
Michigan State
Michigan (gets 1 of the LAST 4 BYES)
Indiana (1 of the LAST 4 IN; in a Play in Game)
Rutgers (1 of the LAST 4 IN; in a Play in Game)
If you understand what the NET measures then there’s a better understanding as to why certain teams are ranked/rated where they are. Flawed? Maybe in the sense that it doesn’t rank/rate the teams as you feel they should be ranked/rated.
We are living in the age of analytics. The 90’s were 30 years ago. That’s when you could rack up 20 wins, regardless of opponent, go .500 in conference play, and a spot was guaranteed.
Iowa is 18th, not because of quality of wins, but because of efficiency metrics and they’ve exceeded expectations on a game to game basis.
Tge good news? There’s still a human element involved. Remember, St John’s made it ranked 73 in the NET. So it’s not the end all, be all. It’s.a sorting tool used to help determine quadrant wins/losses.
At the end of the day, quality wins/bad losses still matter. Schedule strength matters. That’s why Iowa, despite being 18th, isn’t in line for a 5 seed. The consensus still has them at a 7. There’s the human element saying hey wait a minute, that’s not a 5 seed, let’s discuss this a little more.
We are living in the age of analytics. The 90’s were 30 years ago. That’s when you could rack up 20 wins, regardless of opponent, go .500 in conference play, and a spot was guaranteed.
Iowa is 18th, not because of quality of wins, but because of efficiency metrics and they’ve exceeded expectations on a game to game basis.
Tge good news? There’s still a human element involved. Remember, St John’s made it ranked 73 in the NET. So it’s not the end all, be all. It’s.a sorting tool used to help determine quadrant wins/losses.
At the end of the day, quality wins/bad losses still matter. Schedule strength matters. That’s why Iowa, despite being 18th, isn’t in line for a 5 seed. The consensus still has them at a 7. There’s the human element saying hey wait a minute, that’s not a 5 seed, let’s discuss this a little more.
Bingo. And the 7 seed is generally reflective of the #25 ranking done by the humans (rather than the #18 done by the metrics).
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
