They are 10-11 in Quad 1 but only 4 of those wins came away from home (@ TCU, @ Oklahoma, @ Baylor, neutral vs Baylor) and 1 of them, OU, isnt even an NIT team. They are 187th 3 point % and 181st in defending the 3. They kicked off their 3rd leading scorer and dont seem to have any star players. Its not a team that jumps off the page when you look at their stats.
Why is Iowa State good?
- Thread starter Sean Miller Fan
- Start date
Well they won a lot before kicking off that player and play good defense. It is a winnable game for Pitt. They make you turn it over, but not a whole lot of teams shoot 3s in the B12. If Pitt gets them to drop they will win. It’s the classic Pitt team vs the team we used to hate to play in the tourney.
I don't think they should be in the NCAAT, for that matter. They only have 19 wins. I think a minimum number of wins to get in should be 20. They're 0.500 in conference, which is mediocre. They have 2 guys who barely average above 12PPG, no one else in double digits. I don't care about quad whatever it is. They aren't that impressive. Hopefully Pitt doesn't take them lightly and hammers them hard.
Beating Baylor 3 times isn’t impressive. People were shouting for Clemson to get in over NCState because of the three head to heads. Also took down Kansas, Kansas State, and TCU. Also got blown out by Missouri. A winnable game but definitely a tourney resume.
That's all fine and good. But they didn't get to 20 wins total and were a 0.500 team in conference. Those are the first 2 criteria in my mind. You play the schedule you're given. If you win more than you lose in conference, no matter what conference it is, and can get to 20+ wins, you get a reward of playing in the NCAAT.
You’d probably have a different perspective if the ACC was loaded and we finished 19-13 with a lot of good wins.
I think Iowa state is clearly overseeded. A 6 compared to duke as a 5? No way. But they easily belonged in the tournament.
You’d have a ton of garbage 20 win teams if that was the criteria and every team would schedule a terrible OOC.
Baylor is the best 3-point shooting team they played recently. And they beat them 3 times this year.
ps. Baylor has hit 310 3-pointers this year and is 37.1%. Missouri has hit 309 3-pointers this year and is 36.1%.
Bc B12 is best basketball conference ever assembled… besides the B1G this year.
Yea, I am not used to teams playing defense. Duke and UVa are the only teams that do that in the ACC. Pitt basically shot warm-up 3s all year. I have to get back into realizing defense is still a thing some places.
That said, I have always said offense wins in March.
If you make a rule that you have to win 20 games to make the tournament then you are going to get teams giving themselves schedules that include almost all punching bags in the non-conference. If you want teams to actually schedule and play good non-conference opponents then enacting a rule like that would be completely and utterly moronic.
And the NCAA absolutely wants teams to schedule good non-conference opponents. Just ask Clemson.
That's stupid and arbitrary.
Pitt could then schedule RMU 25 times to guarantee themselves 20 wins.
If you are playing the equivalent of a Top 25 team every game, then a 9-11 conference record is the sign of a very good team.
If you set 20-wins as your minimum..... Every single team will schedule 11 RMUs in their non-conference. That's just dumb.
That's a stupid statement. You play your conference schedule. If you do that, you can't play 25 RMU's. My point was that all of these so-called computer models, quads, NET's, all of that garbage isn't a good indicator. Real play with human beings in games is a better indicator. The records are the ultimate factor. I stand by my statement that 20 wins and above 0.500 in conference are minimums. That's the way it primarily was until the whole process was ruined recently.
It was never "20 wins and above .500 in your conference". Never.
Pitt went to the dance with a 17-12 record in 1985. Why? Because we went 8-8 in the toughest conference in the country at the time.
You can stand by it, but that doesn't make it any less dumb.
If they make that the rule, teams will simply stop scheduling out of conference games against teams with a pulse. Because to do otherwise would be moronic. Are you going to want to be the person who has to explain why you didn't make the tournament because you won 19 games while losing to Michigan State and Kentucky rather than beating St. Francis and Delaware State?
It's a guideline! You look at that first. I already said that. It applies to 90% of the cases, probably more. Nothing is ever black and white. Ever.
All I know is that we better come out and play better defense and rebound, or we'll lose this game that we were up by 20 not so long ago.
And Iowa State is a perfect example of that. The lost a non-conference game against UConn. If instead of losing to UConn they would have beaten Central Connecticut State and been 20-12 instead of 19-13 they would have been in. So they simply won't play UConn, they play Central Connecticut.
Why on earth would the NCAA want to encourage that?
Why on earth would the NCAA want to encourage that?
The Pitt defense won that game. That and the fact that ISU can't shoot if their lives depended on it. They are BAD! I still stand by my statement that they didn't belong in the tournament, but it's a W and I'll take it. The Big 12 is vastly overrated, no doubt.
Yea so as I was saying.
I didn't do a ton of research on Iowa State. I looked at their stats, saw they had no really good offensive players, no elite rebounders, and won most of their games at home and thought this team was more similar to an 11 seed like Mississippi State than a 6 seed. Listen, I'll gladly accept the favor the committee did us. NET worked out for us I guess because that's the only reason they were a 6 seed. They played almost their entire schedule in Quad 1 and lost almost every time they played away from the Hilton Magic. Reminded me of a Mountain West "gaming" team even though I know they didn't game NET deliberately like the MW.
Still, they are not as bad as they showed today. A legit 10/11 seed type of team that had a bad game but we didnt exactly play that well offensively either.
The committee needs to do a better job but thanks to them.
I didn't do a ton of research on Iowa State. I looked at their stats, saw they had no really good offensive players, no elite rebounders, and won most of their games at home and thought this team was more similar to an 11 seed like Mississippi State than a 6 seed. Listen, I'll gladly accept the favor the committee did us. NET worked out for us I guess because that's the only reason they were a 6 seed. They played almost their entire schedule in Quad 1 and lost almost every time they played away from the Hilton Magic. Reminded me of a Mountain West "gaming" team even though I know they didn't game NET deliberately like the MW.
Still, they are not as bad as they showed today. A legit 10/11 seed type of team that had a bad game but we didnt exactly play that well offensively either.
The committee needs to do a better job but thanks to them.
Yeah, but WVU beat this team by 3 whole points and I heard WVU was really, really good this year.
