ADVERTISEMENT

Umm...ladies?

Easily the worst performance of the year, at least that I can recall. No defense. Nobody boxing out. Zone there is zero communication, slow rotations. Man, same deal. When Bluder's teams are bad on the defensive end, they're really bad.
 
Three comebacks in three days for the win - men's hoops, UI wrestlers in many of their individual weight battles, and now the women (twice if you count the MN game). Can't count out the Hawks!
 
They have come back to win in the last four games. Down double digits in the last three, and up double digits then down by 5 to Maryland to win in the fourth.
 
This post didn't age real well, huh? LOL

The IOWA HAWKEYE Women now lead the Big10 conference, the Best conference in America, just like the Men.

well, it’s not like I’m not thrilled that they came back and won cuz I am. When i posted it they were down 15 at half and pretty discombobulated. I guess if you feel the need to laugh at me or whatever go for it.
And the men don’t lead the conference but I wish they did.
 
well, it’s not like I’m not thrilled that they came back and won cuz I am. When i posted it they were down 15 at half and pretty discombobulated. I guess if you feel the need to laugh at me or whatever go for it.
And the men don’t lead the conference but I wish they did.

they will before the end of February
 
The IOWA HAWKEYE Women now lead the Big10 conference, the Best conference in America, just like the Men.

Love the job Bluder/Jan Jensen are doing, but in women’s BB, the Big Ten is more like a second tier conference. SEC, ACC and PAC 12 are way better than the Big Ten. And the Big 12 is usually better, though after Baylor, not as strong this year. Come tomorrow the top 15 is unlikely to have even 1 Big Ten team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LarryMullenJr.
I wasn’t sure what to expect this year with the Women’s team, I can say I didn’t expect this and I mean that in a really good way. Major props to Lisa and her staff.

I'll be the first of a few that probably thought .500 in the Big Ten was the absolute goal... especially after the drubbing by UNI early on.

Instead, these girls kicked it in high gear and are poised to be in the tournament again. I never understood the animosity towards Bluder.
 
Love the job Bluder/Jan Jensen are doing, but in women’s BB, the Big Ten is more like a second tier conference. SEC, ACC and PAC 12 are way better than the Big Ten. And the Big 12 is usually better, though after Baylor, not as strong this year. Come tomorrow the top 15 is unlikely to have even 1 Big Ten team.

Baylor is very impressive when you consider that team has to play multiple games of Co-Ed ball per week.
 
I'll be the first of a few that probably thought .500 in the Big Ten was the absolute goal... especially after the drubbing by UNI early on.

Instead, these girls kicked it in high gear and are poised to be in the tournament again. I never understood the animosity towards Bluder.

you feel like there is animosity towards bluder?
 
Bluder is one of the best coaches in Iowa City.

IMO her stock has never been higher.
 
Love the job Bluder/Jan Jensen are doing, but in women’s BB, the Big Ten is more like a second tier conference. SEC, ACC and PAC 12 are way better than the Big Ten. And the Big 12 is usually better, though after Baylor, not as strong this year. Come tomorrow the top 15 is unlikely to have even 1 Big Ten team.

The Big Ten won the Big Ten/ACC Challenge 9-5 this year. The Big Ten also has 9 teams in ESPN's current Bracketology (and 1 in the next 4 out). The next highest conference has 7.

The conference doesn't have the high end teams this year, but to say its second tier is a stretch. Especially when it beat the ACC head to head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stephen Hawk King
Pac 12 is probably better than Big Ten this year. I won't say SEC is better. And ACC is really dragged down by Notre Dame:D
 
That's my thought. The Pac 12 has a bunch of really good teams and depth. SEC has some good teams, but a step below. The Big Ten has more depth than anyone. The ACC is really hurt by Notre Dame being so down. And the Big 12 is Baylor then everyone else.
 
The Big Ten won the Big Ten/ACC Challenge 9-5 this year. The Big Ten also has 9 teams in ESPN's current Bracketology (and 1 in the next 4 out). The next highest conference has 7.

The conference doesn't have the high end teams this year, but to say its second tier is a stretch. Especially when it beat the ACC head to head.

I hope that come tournament time, that you're right that the Big Ten is not second tier. Because that would be a big change from the last 10 years. By my quick count (and happy to be corrected), the power 5 conferences have the following number of Sweet 16s in the last 10 years:

ACC - 31
Big Ten - 12
Big 12 - 24
PAC 12 - 26
SEC - 32

One of these leagues is in a lower tier than the others. Also, but for newcomer Maryland, the Big Ten would have had no Final Four teams in the last decade.
 
I hope that come tournament time, that you're right that the Big Ten is not second tier. Because that would be a big change from the last 10 years. By my quick count (and happy to be corrected), the power 5 conferences have the following number of Sweet 16s in the last 10 years:

ACC - 31
Big Ten - 12
Big 12 - 24
PAC 12 - 26
SEC - 32

One of these leagues is in a lower tier than the others. Also, but for newcomer Maryland, the Big Ten would have had no Final Four teams in the last decade.
Why the hell can't you just give credit where credit is due? Who are you? This thread was about the Iowa Hawkeye women losing to and then coming back and beating Wisconsin to remain tied in 1st place. But you have to trash them by denigrating the conference and you even argue that point.They are playing some great ball and are scoring a lot of points by sharing the ball and getting a lot of assists. They don't give up. I don't hate much, but I hate idiots like you who talk out of the corner of your mouth when giving backhanded compliments while actually trashing the team.
 
Last edited:
I hope that come tournament time, that you're right that the Big Ten is not second tier. Because that would be a big change from the last 10 years. By my quick count (and happy to be corrected), the power 5 conferences have the following number of Sweet 16s in the last 10 years:

ACC - 31
Big Ten - 12
Big 12 - 24
PAC 12 - 26
SEC - 32

One of these leagues is in a lower tier than the others. Also, but for newcomer Maryland, the Big Ten would have had no Final Four teams in the last decade.
Do your sources also show the total number of invitations to the NCAA tournament by conference and the relative distribution of the seeds that they were given? I am especially curious of the number of 8/9 seeds as well as the 7/10, 6/11 and 5/12 seeds by each conference since [in order to get to the round of sixteen] they need to upset a #1 seed (8/9) or a #2-4 (otherwise) in the second round. Also, the distribution of lower and higher seeds would impact outcomes in the first round.

As I’m sure you are aware, there is a considerable disparity in power between the top ranked teams (especially 1 through 4 and to a certain extent 5 through 16 and the rest of the field of 64. Taking into consideration the favorable placement in location that the top sixteen seeds receive, it is understandably difficult (5/12, 6/11 and 7/10 seeds) if not almost impossible (8/9) to have upsets [over the top seeds] occur in the second round, nonetheless in the first round.

I bring this up because it seems like [in the past], Iowa has had several 8/9 seeds and were eliminated in the second round by a 1 seed. Whenever they were eliminated in the first round, there were other unfavorable circumstances involved (eg when #6 seed Iowa had to play #11 seed Gonzaga in their “back yard”).

Perhaps it is true that the B1G does not have the“elite” teams as you say, but, at least this year, (in another metric of relative conference strength) the head-to-head matchups in the power 5 conference challenges were in favor of the B1G.
 
Last edited:
Do your sources also show the total number of invitations to the NCAA tournament by conference and the relative distribution of the seeds that they were given? I am especially curious of the number of 8/9 seeds as well as the 7/10, 6/11 and 5/12 seeds by each conference since [in order to get to the round of sixteen] they need to upset a #1 seed (8/9) or a #2-4 (otherwise) in the second round. Also, the distribution of lower and higher seeds would impact outcomes in the first round.

As I’m sure you are aware, there is a considerable disparity in power between the top ranked teams (especially 1 through 4 and to a certain extent 5 through 16 and the rest of the field of 64. Taking into consideration the favorable placement in location that the top sixteen seeds receive, it is understandably difficult (5/12, 6/11 and 7/10 seeds) if not almost impossible (8/9) to have upsets [over the top seeds] occur in the second round, nonetheless in the first round.

You raise good points and questions, and it is certainly difficult for lower seeds to advance to the Sweet 16, but the Big 10 women seem to have had an especially tough time over the last decade in advancing to the Sweet 16 when seeded 6 or lower. By my count, the Big Ten has had 30 teams seeded 6-11 in the last decade, only 1 of which (Nebraska - '13) made it to the Sweet 16. Outside the Big Ten, 29 teams seeded 6-11 made the Sweet 16 during the same time period. So the Big Ten's lower seeded teams have rarely (1 time) been able to overperform enough to make the Sweet 16.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, perhaps a bigger problem for the Big Ten is that its higher seeds (but not Iowa) have performed badly. The Big Ten has had 25 teams seeded 5 or higher in the last 10 years. A slight majority of the time (13 times), the Big Ten team has lost to a lower seeded team (i.e. a team with a higher #). Notable examples in the last 5 years include 3-seed Maryland losing to 6-seed UCLA last year, and 10-seed Oregon in '17. OSU lost as a 3 seed in '18 and '16 to 11-seed Central Michigan and 7-seed Tennessee. 2-seed Maryland also lost to 7-seed Washington in '16, as did 4-seed MSU in losing to 5-seed Mississippi St.

While the Big Ten's higher seeds frequently underperform, they rarely beat their seed. Only 1 time in the last decade has a top-5 Big Ten seed beat a higher seeded team. 5-seed OSU beat 4-seed Kentucky in '17. Finally, the Big Ten's higher seeded performed to their seeding 11 times in the last decade, including Iowa in '15 and '19.

The net result is 10 Big Ten Sweet 16s in the last decade, which is a very low number compared to the other P-5 conferences (the Big Ten men had 29 during the same period). My earlier count of 12 for the women included 2 Maryland Sweet 16s while still in the ACC. But 2020 is the beginning of a new decade, and the Big Ten women won the ACC challenge year this (as noted above). So hopefully the Big Ten women can have a better showing in this year's NCAA tourney.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UpstreamHawkeye
You raise good points and questions, and it is certainly difficult for lower seeds to advance to the Sweet 16, but the Big 10 women seem to have had an especially tough time over the last decade in advancing to the Sweet 16 when seeded 6 or lower. By my count, the Big Ten has had 30 teams seeded 6-11 in the last decade, only 1 of which (Nebraska - '13) made it to the Sweet 16. Outside the Big Ten, 29 teams seeded 6-11 made the Sweet 16 during the same time period. So the Big Ten's lower seeded teams have rarely (1 time) been able to overperform enough to make the Sweet 16.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, perhaps a bigger problem for the Big Ten is that its higher seeds (but not Iowa) have performed badly. The Big Ten has had 25 teams seeded 5 or higher in the last 10 years. A slight majority of the time (13 times), the Big Ten team has lost to a lower seeded team (i.e. a team with a higher #). Notable examples in the last 5 years include 3-seed Maryland losing to 6-seed UCLA last year, and 10-seed Oregon in '17. OSU lost as a 3 seed in '18 and '16 to 11-seed Central Michigan and 7-seed Tennessee. 2-seed Maryland also lost to 7-seed Washington in '16, as did 4-seed MSU in losing to 5-seed Mississippi St.

While the Big Ten's higher seeds frequently underperform, they rarely beat their seed. Only 1 time in the last decade has a top-5 Big Ten seed beat a higher seeded team. 5-seed OSU beat 4-seed Kentucky in '17. Finally, the Big Ten's higher seeded performed to their seeding 11 times in the last decade, including Iowa in '15 and '19.

The net result is 10 Big Ten Sweet 16s in the last decade, which is a very low number compared to the other P-5 conferences (the Big Ten men had 29 during the same period). My earlier count of 12 for the women included 2 Maryland Sweet 16s while still in the ACC. But 2020 is the beginning of a new decade, and the Big Ten women won the ACC challenge year this (as noted above). So hopefully the Big Ten women can have a better showing in this year's NCAA tourney.
Thank you for your well-researched data and level-headed response. Sometimes the comments here do get heated! I agree that the Big Ten has underperformed in the NCAAs in the recent past. I remember Ohio State and more recently Maryland getting upset by lower seeds. And really, before Maryland joined in, for a while Ohio State was the only team that carried any hope for Big Ten to advance deep in the tournament but often disappointed. Back in the late 90s it was Purdue who carried the banner and actually won the only national title for Big Ten. Then there were the odd years of Minnesota and Penn State in the Final Four, and Michigan State in the championship game one time. Ohio State, as dominant in the Big Ten as they were during the Jim Foster years in the 2000s, never reached Final Four. Maryland got to the last Final Four for a Big Ten team after they joined. Hopefully this year the Big Ten teams can perform above their seeds. Maybe we'll see four teams in the Sweet Sixteen.
 
You raise good points and questions, and it is certainly difficult for lower seeds to advance to the Sweet 16, but the Big 10 women seem to have had an especially tough time over the last decade in advancing to the Sweet 16 when seeded 6 or lower. By my count, the Big Ten has had 30 teams seeded 6-11 in the last decade, only 1 of which (Nebraska - '13) made it to the Sweet 16. Outside the Big Ten, 29 teams seeded 6-11 made the Sweet 16 during the same time period. So the Big Ten's lower seeded teams have rarely (1 time) been able to overperform enough to make the Sweet 16.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, perhaps a bigger problem for the Big Ten is that its higher seeds (but not Iowa) have performed badly. The Big Ten has had 25 teams seeded 5 or higher in the last 10 years. A slight majority of the time (13 times), the Big Ten team has lost to a lower seeded team (i.e. a team with a higher #). Notable examples in the last 5 years include 3-seed Maryland losing to 6-seed UCLA last year, and 10-seed Oregon in '17. OSU lost as a 3 seed in '18 and '16 to 11-seed Central Michigan and 7-seed Tennessee. 2-seed Maryland also lost to 7-seed Washington in '16, as did 4-seed MSU in losing to 5-seed Mississippi St.

While the Big Ten's higher seeds frequently underperform, they rarely beat their seed. Only 1 time in the last decade has a top-5 Big Ten seed beat a higher seeded team. 5-seed OSU beat 4-seed Kentucky in '17. Finally, the Big Ten's higher seeded performed to their seeding 11 times in the last decade, including Iowa in '15 and '19.

The net result is 10 Big Ten Sweet 16s in the last decade, which is a very low number compared to the other P-5 conferences (the Big Ten men had 29 during the same period). My earlier count of 12 for the women included 2 Maryland Sweet 16s while still in the ACC. But 2020 is the beginning of a new decade, and the Big Ten women won the ACC challenge year this (as noted above). So hopefully the Big Ten women can have a better showing in this year's NCAA tourney.

This is all very interesting analysis and does not shed a very favorable light on the B1G. I do agree that the B1G does not seem to have any elite (top 8) teams which is evident by their lack of final four appearances. They also appear to poorly represent in the sweet sixteen. Ten appearances [in the sweet sixteen] by the twenty-five #5 or better seeds, is not very good. However, as I was trying to argue in my last post, there may be an explanation that suggests a negative bias against the B1G which could be attributed to the distribution of the seeds between #5 and #8/9 (overall numbers 17 through 32/36. These are the teams that must out-perform their seed in order to make the sweet sixteen. It stands to reason that a #5 seed (overall #17-20) has a decent chance to upset a #4 seed (overall 13-16). On the other hand, a #8 (or #9) seed (overall 29-36) has virtually no chance to upset a #1seed. A negative bias would exist if a preponderance of B1G seeds were #8 (or #9) rather than #5, relative to the other conferences. I do not know off hand if this is true, but it does seem to me that Iowa has been seeded #8/9 (or #7/10) many times. Regardless of the sweet sixteen debate, the B1G [collectively] always seems to have an overwhelmingly positive record in the non-conference season which may suggest the existence of a third tier. I believe for that (non-conference record), they may get overall more teams invited into the NCAA tournament field of 64. Finally, the B1G has done well in the WNIT including (I believe) a couple of championships in recent years. In summary, what constitutes a second tier conference is undefined, subjective and arguable.

For another debate, I would argue that it would be more likely to make the sweet sixteen as an #11 seed than as a #8/9 seed. In theory, although they (#11) would have a slightly lower chance to advance against a #6 seed (than a #9 over a #8) in round one, but if successful, they would face a much easier challenge against a #3 seed (then a #8/9 seed would against a #1 seed) in the second round. This is precisely what Gonzaga did when they beat #6 Iowa and #3 LSU (I think it was) to make the sweet sixteen in the West region (I forget the year). They were the virtual host at the #11 seed a short distance from their campus in Spokane. That situation points out another quirk in the seeding process. For all intents and purposes, LSU might as well have been a #6 seed and Iowa a #11 seed.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT