NET Rankings
- Thread starter Hawkcub01
- Start date
Would you rather they went down?
We are on 13-15 games per team now so the movement isn't as substantial but the fact they went up after beating such a pitiful team is a good thing. Usually you drop playing trash like that. It's all on the table for them in BIG play. Start Friday!
Doesn't really matter. There's still 12 B1G teams ahead of us.
I'm not looking at it again until the end of January. Then again at the end of February. By then, we'll know if it will be worth looking at in March.
Look at it this way - if Iowa finishes in the top 50, and there's still 12 b10 teams ahead of us, then yeah, we're probably a long shot for the tournament...but that would also mean the b10 is ALOT better than any of us think it is this year; not to mention we will have plenty of opportunities to get Q1 wins in the next 3 months.
We're in a much better situation on 12/31/24 than we were on 12/31/23 when we were 8-5 and a NET hovering in the upper 60s.
And frankly, if Iowa can take care of business, there won't be 12 B10 teams ahead of us in the NET or in the conference standings.
Sure.
At the end of the season, if Iowa's NET is still in the top 50, I think we'll be in a pretty good situation. Hard to envision doing that and being less than .500 in conference play.
You guys aren't predicting a B1G regular season championship?
I’d not be surprised if Iowa loses 10 in a row or wins 10 in a row. I suspect that they will be 5-5 after 10 games though
I don't disagree with THIS post, but your earlier post says #50 net or better and they dance and that is the part that seems open for debate. #50 net doesn't seem good enough unless the NCAA tourney takes more than 10 teams from B1G. Eleven or more teams might be possible in the new landscape where NCAA is maximizing Money/eyeballs and B1G has a lot of marketing power, but is an unknown outcome from my POV.
This Iowa team could come together and be much better product than they are right now. No doubt an NCAA tourney appearance could happen and is not a particularly high bar for B1G team when more than half the teams make it.
I'm trying to battle the assumption that the teams ahead of us in the NET are going to still be ahead of us there at the end of the season and/or they'll also be ahead in the b10 standings.
Say for example, that Iowa finishes 48th in NET but is 7th in b10 standings. imo, Iowa makes the dance in that scenario.
First things first tho - Iowa needs to be no worse than 9-11 in b10 standings to be in consideration; I think they can do that. If they go .500 or better, I like their chances.
With the big changes in the power conferences, I am not sure what the committee will use to make the bubble decisions. I would like to think that finishing over .500 in the B1G and no bad losses in nonconference would get Iowa in. A .500 record might be bubble time, and below we are out. We just need to beat the freaking Badgers and move on from there.
Badgers are backed into almost a must win this early , so Hawks better be prepared for a war Friday
Above all, avoid the bad losses we had last year. If we'd simply done that, they might have gotten in.
And in the context of saying Iowa needs to avoid those bad losses this year, this means what exactly?
I think it means Iowa needs to avoid bad losses. But I'm usually better on multiple choices format tests....?
There definitely is room for Iowa to Shoot up in the NET ratings given there are so many higher rated NET teams in B1G. I suppose some of those above us could tank. In the end 10 B1G teams probably get selected---maybe more.
I would say if the NCAA tourney were picked today, that Iowa wouldn't be included. If Iowa only goes 10-10 in B1G conference play, that also seems dicey situation. I see we are 0-3 vs Quad1, so we need some Quad1 wins.
I would say this year's Iowa team has a lot more potential to improve as the year goes along than most of Fran's past teams. There are some young players that have upside and Payton could catch fire...lot of variables. I did watch some of the UNH game and Tadjo looked like he could be the answer to some of our rebounding issues, if Fran were willing to play him. Mulvey also doesn't look as bad as he is made out to be. Fran is pretty stubborn about not giving up anything on offense, even if it could improve the defense/rebounding.
I don't know if the substitution order in the last game means anything but Tadjo was ahead of Mulvey.
He made some impressive strength plays. There was one 50/50 rebound he got where the opponent had CT on his hip and Tadjo went right through the contact to get the ball, displacing the man attempting to box him out.
Iowa doesn't have anyone else that wants to power move people out of the way for rebounds but that's what every other big ten team has.
7ft wingspan helps too.
Doesn't matter who is healthy or not. Mulvey isn't playing unless Fran is out of players above 6'5" or the game is out of hand.
Based on his playing history, this is one I just have to side with fran here; just haven’t seen much consistently from Mulvey.
I really don't understand why he's still on the team if he's not good enough to be ahead of Brauns.
It seems like Fran just doesn't have the heart to run him off even though he keeps recruiting over him.
It would have probably helped if he had added some muscle. He doesn't look like a big ten player in year 4.
That's not what I meant. Who has added a lot of muscle in 4 years under Fran?
Gotcha, I agree then.
Garza, Rebraca the Murrays are the ones that come to mind and they all had strong outside the program influences.
I think everyone gets a little stronger but it's not a noticeable transformation for the most part like you used to see with the previous coaches.
Mulvey still seems abnormally skinny even for Fran. He is fast though.
Mulvey has played better this year than I thought he could, far better than previous years except 1 or 2 exceptions. He might actually have better quickness than the other centers, good hands, and is taller. He has shown that he can probably play in short spurts and hold his own. He hasn't played more than a few minutes, so I am not sure how major minutes would go. Speculating, which maybe isn't fair, his apparent lack of muscle might reflect his lack of commitment to being a power conference center. He certainly doesn't mind being a cheerleader on the bench.
Wisconsin has 2, 7 footers, and so does Michigan. Not sure about rest of the league, but we sure could use Mulvey to be a true backup center. None of the others are. In Mulvey's 3 years of playing time limited as it is, there is nothing that suggest to me that Brauns is a better option than Mulvey. These weak opponents are an opportunity to get guys playing time that you could use for short backup roles later in the conference season. If Mulvey would have had steady minutes these last 3 years we might actually have a 6'11" guy coming in for our 6'10" center for ten minutes a game, and maybe more. If we stay healthy, I'm pretty pumped up about this team, but a true center coming off the bench is going to be hard to overcome.
Iowa always has winnable games. But they have Fran's substitutions which nullify any chances of winning games where "home cooking" doesn't take place.
BirdistheWord
HB Legend
He is not that tall but plays bigger and has some juice…Tadjo. Guy oozes athleticism. Is fearless on offensive end. If he can avoid some of the fouls he could give us a few minutes vs bigger teams.
6'9 240+ with 7ft wingspan is plenty big in today's game. Thats your standard sized MSU 5 man. His standing reach is probably the same or taller than Freeman's.
Dude is a bit of a bull in a China shop but I'm good with that trade off for grabing rebounds and blocking shots. He has seriously high upside.
