Had court side tickets for this game because of #WeWill. During warmups I was concerned because they looked like a solid team. Afterwards I knew we had at least a Sweet 16 team.
*** Official Selection Sunday Thread ***
- Thread starter CycloneRulzzz
- Start date
Had court side tickets for this game because of #WeWill. During warmups I was concerned because they looked like a solid team. Afterwards I knew we had at least a Sweet 16 team.
I don't have issues with the #2 seed (too much). What I found interesting was the committee's justifying the lowest #2 by saying that they looked at the entire season and that late games were treated the same as preseason games and penalized iowa State for a weak preseason schedule. Did not penalize UNC, Houston. Purdue for their tournament losses but did not credit Iowa State for its win.
But on the women's side the spokesman on talking about Texas talked about their and Iowa's tournament championships even though neither won their regular season championship. So on the women's side two #1:seeds finished second in regular season but won the tournament. But on the men's side three #1 seeds lost on their tournaments.
Where is the consistancy with how the men and women made their selections?
But on the women's side the spokesman on talking about Texas talked about their and Iowa's tournament championships even though neither won their regular season championship. So on the women's side two #1:seeds finished second in regular season but won the tournament. But on the men's side three #1 seeds lost on their tournaments.
Where is the consistancy with how the men and women made their selections?
Some years out of conference seems to matter and others it doesn’t, according to the committee. Houston had a sorry out of conference schedule but it clearly didn’t hurt them. The NCAA will be arbitrary and make up things to fit their narrative. Whether the true argument is out of conference schedule, the committee is claiming we got worse by beating Baylor and Houston (we were ranked 7th then got the 8th best slot). This committee is lazy and seemed to put a sorry amount of effort into this years bracket.
I believe that they go with non con schedule because it is a measure that justifies their inherent bias.
It's all BS. Non con schedule being the most important factor is just not right. Sure, that should play a factor, but if you look at the NET and KenPom, we are not the number 8 squad. The committee sucks and is biased and clearly they didn't like Iowa State for some silly reason.
Yeah, there seems to be a definite bias toward the ACC/SEC/and swansongPAC12, and an anti BIG12 sans KU. That Boston Regional probably will have stronger metrics than the final four, unless all other #1's win out. Think if I was a UCONN fan i'd be going WTF!
As much as I think the committee is incompetent, we didn't get screwed...UCONN did. Would you rather play Wash St/Drake or FAU? Would you rather play BYU/ILL or Auburn? And then, if they make it, they have us. And they ain't played nobody like us in 2 years.
Even in the 2nd round, would you rather player Wash St/Drake or Michigan State, TX A&M, or TCU? Those are all the teams the #1's may have to play.
Even in the 2nd round, would you rather player Wash St/Drake or Michigan State, TX A&M, or TCU? Those are all the teams the #1's may have to play.
Sure, UCONN got screwed. Iowa State got screwed as well. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Just time to put up or shut up. We had our fun trip in KC. Now our team needs to get down to the important stuff. Nothing anyone can do about the selection committee, as they have the power and get to do what they want to do. Going to be very special if we play up to our capability, with the teams that have been chosen for our destruction. Let’s do this!
Last edited:
Yeah I don’t understand the committee at all. They have just been horrible at seeding teams the past few years and putting in ACC teams that don’t deserve it.
No con sos also hurts mid majors a lot. Like you said, there is only so much you can control with non con games.
Iowa State went 2-2 against non con teams in the top 80 of KemPom (Texas A&M, Iowa, VA Tech, VCU)....we also went 2-2 against the top 230: Green Bay was the next best team we played at 231. We beat Grambling by 55, and played 6 of our 13 non con games against teams worse than them. Our one true road non con game was against DePaul (307) that won 3 games all year.
KemPom rates UNC's non con at 36. The other 2 seeds are at 10, 21, and 23. Iowa State is at 351......not a typo.
The Big 12 was an incredible league by any measure and our performance in those games played a role in seeding. The non con was absolute trash by any measure and also played a role in seeding.
KemPom rates UNC's non con at 36. The other 2 seeds are at 10, 21, and 23. Iowa State is at 351......not a typo.
The Big 12 was an incredible league by any measure and our performance in those games played a role in seeding. The non con was absolute trash by any measure and also played a role in seeding.
Final thoughts on nonconference schedule and then I’m moving on from it:
It’s a great metric to measure really good mid-major teams like Gonzaga, St. Mary’s, and MVC teams a lot of years because their conferences are so weak in general that front-loading their nonconference schedules is the only way for them to get the respect they deserve.
On the flip side, it’s a terrible metric to use to punish a team like ISU who in nearly every other metric you could use was better - especially when, despite the weak ass nonconference schedule they still managed to play one of the most difficult schedules of anyone in the top 8. And that’s exactly what the committee used it for in this case - they said to themselves they didn’t want to seed ISU where it deserved to be seeded based on overall resume and used a singular metric to hose ISU as much as they could get away with. And the crazy thing is nearly everyone in the media, including those that ridiculed ISU for that nonconference schedule as well as those that normally look down on ISU, called the committee out on it (even if it was from the stance that UConn got shafted, which was ESPN’s stance - and they’re not exactly wrong about that, either. By screwing over ISU they also screwed over the overall #1 seed).
It’s a great metric to measure really good mid-major teams like Gonzaga, St. Mary’s, and MVC teams a lot of years because their conferences are so weak in general that front-loading their nonconference schedules is the only way for them to get the respect they deserve.
On the flip side, it’s a terrible metric to use to punish a team like ISU who in nearly every other metric you could use was better - especially when, despite the weak ass nonconference schedule they still managed to play one of the most difficult schedules of anyone in the top 8. And that’s exactly what the committee used it for in this case - they said to themselves they didn’t want to seed ISU where it deserved to be seeded based on overall resume and used a singular metric to hose ISU as much as they could get away with. And the crazy thing is nearly everyone in the media, including those that ridiculed ISU for that nonconference schedule as well as those that normally look down on ISU, called the committee out on it (even if it was from the stance that UConn got shafted, which was ESPN’s stance - and they’re not exactly wrong about that, either. By screwing over ISU they also screwed over the overall #1 seed).
UConn message boards are not happy getting ISU in their region and they all seem to think that ISU was the 4th/5th best team overall. The Big East bias is horrible. Marquette is a good team, but they have zero business being a 2 seed. The committee is saying a 9 loss team in a weaker conference than the Big 12 has a more impressive resume than Iowa State? How do they justify that garbage? They beat Kansas out of conference, but Kansas has proven they're not that good (Kansas getting a 4 seed is a joke. Kansas should be a 6). UNC's resume is trash compared to ours.
Yeah, I would imagine UConn fans aren’t happy. As I said in my previous post, in the committee’s attempts to punish ISU as much as they could get away with they also screwed over the overall #1 seed in the process. I don’t make a habit of feeling bad for UConn fans, but they got absolutely hosed by having us, Illinois, and Auburn in their region.
As for us, despite being placed in the East and having SDSU and potentially Drake as our Omaha opponents, all that said we should have no problems getting to the second weekend once you get over the outrage/annoyance.
I was traveling all day yesterday and couldn’t follow all this really close. I’m catching up now and something I’ve been thinking is the Big 12 tournament wins are devalued by the committee because they see them as close to home games. I know there are metrics they look at that consider pretty much anything you want to look at, but the two knocks I’ve see against ISU is non con scheduling and a “mediocre” road/neutral record. Both of those things are BS reasons to make us a #8 overall. I think if we won the tournament if it was played in Texas with 1/3 of the fans we had in KC it would have weighed heavier. That’s a bunch of BS too. Home/away/neutral we have the most impressive win anyone had this entire year beating Houston the way we did.
Regardless, we are a 2 in Omaha. The tournament was never going to be easy. We are built for this. We are damn good, people don’t want to play us, and I don’t blame them.
Regardless, we are a 2 in Omaha. The tournament was never going to be easy. We are built for this. We are damn good, people don’t want to play us, and I don’t blame them.
I disagree on the Big East bias. Only 3 teams from the league got in. And only one of those bubble teams was even in the first 4 out (Seton Hall).
I’ve also seen people saying we were seeded 7th overall and fell to 8th after the Big 12 tournament. Where are people seeing we were listed 7th? If they are going off the AP poll, that literally has nothing to do with the committee’s S-Curve. In the committee’s first reveal, we were ranked 11th overall.
