Graham Couch: Iowa Basketball is a mid-major roster

I dont remember every single dunk by an opposing player in CHA.
4436764-4915094232-we_ge.jpg
 
You guys are sensitive today. I simply said ISU fans think finishing in the top 4-7 will be a tournament lock. I have had multiple people say ISU should finish there. So I said ISU fans think ISU is a lock for the tournament next year.

I also have pointed out that Locure has not been bad this AAU season and is getting looks from Kansas State and Iowa, also Minnesota has been watching his games. Now that Carton has released a top 6, Expect more teams in the midwest to evaluate Locure and Terry. It is a small crop of PGs this year for the 2019 cycle.

Follow the twitter handle of the beyond ball AAU to get more updates if you do not believe me.

BTW, sorry to the ISU fans that have been objective and have had good dialogue. I am just tired of facts being ignored is all.

This probably won't resonate with you as you are too dense to understand the difference between a prediction and a call for a 'lock' but we will give a try anyway:

I predict, no, it is a lock that not one ISU fan will take your comments here as objective or would classify as being part of a good dialogue - so save the apology for your ilk over at HN.
 
Well, congrats on your historical success, I guess?

Too bad history doesn't determine ranking within the last few years or so, like we've been discussing.

According to the BPI formula, the big 12 gets a nod as the best conference because they only have 10 teams but they have the least likely hood of winning a national title. They also say it is because their are no bottom feeders because of this. So the 10 team conference is benefit to overall rank, not a terrible team makes it easier to be the best, and this also limits them when it comes to winning a national title. So I am left to wonder how is this benefitting the teams in the big 12 if there is a lesser chance of winning a championship?
 
According to the BPI formula, the big 12 gets a nod as the best conference because they only have 10 teams but they have the least likely hood of winning a national title. They also say it is because their are no bottom feeders because of this. So the 10 team conference is benefit to overall rank, not a terrible team makes it easier to be the best, and this also limits them when it comes to winning a national title. So I am left to wonder how is this benefitting the teams in the big 12 if there is a lesser chance of winning a championship?

Did you place a large bet against yourself in this argument?
 
According to the BPI formula, the big 12 gets a nod as the best conference because they only have 10 teams but they have the least likely hood of winning a national title. They also say it is because their are no bottom feeders because of this. So the 10 team conference is benefit to overall rank, not a terrible team makes it easier to be the best, and this also limits them when it comes to winning a national title. So I am left to wonder how is this benefitting the teams in the big 12 if there is a lesser chance of winning a championship?
How do they define "lesser chance of winning"? Obviously having less teams overall produces less opportunities for a team to rise up and win a Natty, that's useless information. It'd be nice if they elaborated more on their exact point with that.

As for the balance part, not having a bad team is exactly what it is -- not having a bad team. That's a good thing for the conference in basically any way you look at it (and this is a recent change, too -- we've had our bottom-feeders before). But, the above point still remains: they're making these statements without some form or example of supplementary data to explain it.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron