***Official 2013 Bracketology Thread***
- Thread starter CarlHungus
- Start date
H
HGPuck
Guest
Three reasons for me:
1. As of right now they don't deserve to be in the tournament and I would rather they not back into it, because nobody remembers how you got in only that you did. If they beat MSU today this reason is no longer there for me. They would have stepped up in the moment and deserve it if they get it.
2. The general national media love fest with the Big 10 this season as being the "undisputed best conference." Not saying top to bottom they aren't, but its not simply a fact like some present it. The top 5 are very strong (although I certainly wouldn't put money on any of them winning the national championship), but the bottom 7 are average when compared to the middle and bottom of other major conferences.
3. The increased statewide media attention our program will get if we are the only team in the tournament, good for fan support and marginally beneficial for recruiting.
Agree 100%. If they earn the bid, good for them. Backing into the tourney is just short of buying your way into the NIT.
I wouldn't mind if all four teams were perennially in the tournament or at least in the mix — as long as Iowa State is the best among them nearly all the time.
Not sure what it would mean in grand scheme. Maybe a little more media attention, maybe some recruiting impact. But it would require frequent success for all schools, over a significant time span.
Valid stuff.
No. 1 is fair — I prefer Iowa not make it in a rivalry way, but if hawkies get a bid, they'll have earned it.
No. 2:
Big Ten is having a "Big East" season. So many high-end teams (1-2-3 seed material) in the upper division, scattered wins by the mid-level teams carry more weight. The flipside of that, teams good enough in the middle to beat those top teams (esp. at home).
Add to that unbalanced conference schedule, and you get a mish-mash -- Wisconsin finishes above Michigan in tournament seeding, which doesn't seem to make sense; weak-resume Iowa finishes ahead of numbers-heavy Illinois and Minnesota.
THANK YOU!! Just wanted to see what everyone would say. Some people just can't grasp the fact that things won't change and there are some teams that other teams just don't like and will not root for.
They may be, but you are talking about 2 completely different styles here. I would think style of play (along with success) will be a bigger deciding factor.
Maybe they cross path's on a couple of guys, but that is it, for the most part they will recruit different kinds of players.
Believe it or not kids like to play against good teams, Iowa and ISU are going to play hoops against each other every year, why not have them both be good.
Virginia and La Salle lose. Tennessee is currently losing to Alabama. This helps teams like Middle Tennessee, Boise State, Southern Mississippi, Iowa, and Ole Miss.
I agree that recruiting is a total non issue. We have ~30 other games every year to play somebody good so that argument doesn't hold much water with me. The issue I haven't seen mentioned is fans - in particular the casual fan. Iowa having sub-.500 records in both football and basketball for the next 25 years while ISU wins bowl games and NCAA tournament games would do a lot for the school. If nothing else it would start to make Iowan's understand there is more than one top level university in this state. From a non-athletic perspective I bet most people in this state think ISU is closer to UNI than it is to Iowa.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Half time lead? I think the committee will want to take the full game into account
