So let me get this straight...control our destiny for 4th place

[hhcmatt]

 

17 wins at 4th place doesnt get us in to the tourney.

17 wins won't get us 4th place. I am assuming we'll need to go 2-0 (19 wins) to get 4th.

 

 

 

Not sure if I have the tiebreaker right, but this just takes 2 losses from a slumping Iowa team to happen with us going 1-1

[lanigan123]

18 wins doesn't get us in, 19 is what Lunardi says and unless you get it in regular season it's more likely in tourney

[royalfan]

No question in my mind at all.  We certainly would want to be the 4 seed.  That quarterfinal game will be a ballgame that can put us in the dance.  I would much rather have fresh legs and another scouting opportunity before likely playing the 5 seed.  This is much better than the very small benefit a win over the 12 seed would do us.  And the other thing to keep in mind is that we would be a very tiny favorite over anyone but NW.  It would be a very loseable game.  No thanks wishing to play in that thing over a 4 seed. 

[lanigan123]

No way. 18-12 at a chance to beat a top 100 team that we dominated or 18-12 against a team that beat us by 29. I think I will take the rpi boost of a neutral court win and then a chance at OSU or Iowa, a loss their puts us at 18 and NIT, 19 wins gives us a shot. Conference standings doesn't come in to play at tourney time. We have enough top 50 wins.

[uneblinstu]

I don't see us getting the 4 unless we go 2-0 this week. We also beat that team that beat us by 29, btw. If I'm gonna take on Iowa or OSU, I want to do it with fresh legs after they had to play a game. Why would we want it the other way around? That's entirely counter-intuitive, to me.

[royalfan]

I think Lanigan is underestimating our chances of already being in the dance if we are 4th in Big 10.  Also seems to be overestimating the benefit the amount of help a win over the last place team would do us.  It would be a deal breaking loss.  And he is also far too confident in our chances of winning such a game.  We would be 3 point or less favorites over all of them but NW.  And he is drastically underestimating the importance of fresh legs in quarterfinal and more time to prepare for our likely opponent.  We play Penn St. or something in that 5-12 game we have to certainly use our prep time on that game.  We will be a 2 or 3 point favorite in game.  That prevents us from preparing for the quarterfinal team which we could do if we had the bye. 

 

Those are the main reasons I don't agree at all with that logic.  There is no win requirement to make the NCAA tourney. 

[Blackshirt83]

18 wins doesn't get us in, 19 is what Lunardi says and unless you get it in regular season it's more likely in tourney

You put too much stock in what Lunardi says. Lunardi is a smart guy but he also incorporates espn's stupid BPI matrix in his rankings. (NU is around 60 in the BPI) and the actual committee does not factor in the BPI at all.

[ajb5856]

I think Lanigan is underestimating our chances of already being in the dance if we are 4th in Big 10. Also seems to be overestimating the benefit the amount of help a win over the last place team would do us. It would be a deal breaking loss. And he is also far too confident in our chances of winning such a game. We would be 3 point or less favorites over all of them but NW. And he is drastically underestimating the importance of fresh legs in quarterfinal and more time to prepare for our likely opponent. We play Penn St. or something in that 5-12 game we have to certainly use our prep time on that game. We will be a 2 or 3 point favorite in game. That prevents us from preparing for the quarterfinal team which we could do if we had the bye.

Those are the main reasons I don't agree at all with that logic. There is no win requirement to make the NCAA tourney.

This is a solid post^^^^^. The frustrating thing to me is all of the analysts who are saying we have to win a certain number of games or win 3 more or 2 more or whatever. First off, like Royalfan eluded to, there's no magic win total that guarantees a tourney birth. Second, no analyst knows for sure what it will take to make the tournament. Back in the day they used to have that 20-win rule of thumb where they would say that 20 wins generally got you into the tournament. Not true anymore. Yes we have to keep winning to stay alive or remain in contention for a berth, this much is obvious. But nobody knows how many wins we need.

[GoBigRed]

 

I think Lanigan is underestimating our chances of already being in the dance if we are 4th in Big 10. Also seems to be overestimating the benefit the amount of help a win over the last place team would do us. It would be a deal breaking loss. And he is also far too confident in our chances of winning such a game. We would be 3 point or less favorites over all of them but NW. And he is drastically underestimating the importance of fresh legs in quarterfinal and more time to prepare for our likely opponent. We play Penn St. or something in that 5-12 game we have to certainly use our prep time on that game. We will be a 2 or 3 point favorite in game. That prevents us from preparing for the quarterfinal team which we could do if we had the bye.

Those are the main reasons I don't agree at all with that logic. There is no win requirement to make the NCAA tourney.

This is a solid post^^^^^. The frustrating thing to me is all of the analysts who are saying we have to win a certain number of games or win 3 more or 2 more or whatever. First off, like Royalfan eluded to, there's no magic win total that guarantees a tourney birth. Second, no analyst knows for sure what it will take to make the tournament. Back in the day they used to have that 20-win rule of thumb where they would say that 20 wins generally got you into the tournament. Not true anymore. Yes we have to keep winning to stay alive or remain in contention for a berth, this much is obvious. But nobody knows how many wins we need.

 

Jerry Palm has us his 1st team out. Current wins and projected wins in parentheses.

 

Providence - 19 (20)

California - 18 (19)

Dayton - 20 (21)

Missouri - 20 (21)

Nebraska - 17 (18)

Minnesota - 17 (18)

Tennessee - 17 (18)

BYU - 20 (20)

 

We're at 17 wins. Aside from Baylor, that means he considers us the strongest 17-win team out there. Because of our SOS, our quality wins and our play in the last month and a half, we are viewed right along with teams sitting on 19-20 wins already. If we beat Wisconsin, that would be a huge win. None of those teams above us are likely to beat a Top 10 team in the next week. Funny enough 7 of the 8 are projected to get 1 more win, and ours would be the best by far. If we were to also pull out a W at Indiana, we'd be at 19 wins with a quality road win and a Top 10 win. We'd be the 4 seed and a near lock, IMO. If we go 1-1 and get 5th, I still think the committee would want to see us beat the 4 seed. They would not care if we beat Northwestern or Penn State. Just my opinion.

 

Also, I think this is a waste of time because Iowa is going to beat Purdue today and probably Illinois at home on their senior day, going 10-8. We'd need to go 2-0 to be the 4 seed, and if we do we'll be in.

[lanigan123]

Royal fan you are making my point for me. RPI neutral court wins mean more than home wins, thus helping our rpi. You can disagree with what Lunardi says but most analyst are usually closer than 2 teams right. Conference position means less than w-l. It's why at 9-9 in conference minnesota will be in. According to you, you wod rather play a team that we will be an 8 point dog instead a team where we will be favored? Ales zero sense.

[uneblinstu]

I think it's more that we'd rather not play a game that has little benefit like an ugly game vs. Northwestern probably would be. Let's just hope they go 2-0 this week and MSU beats Iowa. Win one and we'll at least be the 5.

[HF_]

Minnesota has already lost 10 games in the conference and cannot go 9-9.

[royalfan]

Royal fan you are making my point for me. RPI neutral court wins mean more than home wins, thus helping our rpi. You can disagree with what Lunardi says but most analyst are usually closer than 2 teams right. Conference position means less than w-l. It's why at 9-9 in conference minnesota will be in. According to you, you wod rather play a team that we will be an 8 point dog instead a team where we will be favored? Ales zero sense.

 

1. I certainly have not made your point for you.  I do not agree with your logic at all.  I said exactly why I disagree with it.  That is the opposite of making a point for you. 

 

2.  Obviously a neutral court win is better than a home court win(against the same team).  I think we all know that. 

 

3.  I hardly ever agree or disagree with any given person all the time.  Lunardi would be included.  I do generally think he has a pretty good idea what he is talking about.  Not sure what difference that makes anyway.  He would also agree that Nebraska would be better off as a 4 seed over a 5 seed.  Beating the worst team is not going to help much.  And can eliminate us. 

 

4.  Conference position is certainly important.  If you finish 4th in the one of the best conferences, it would be extremely rare to not get a bid.  I don't think we will ever see a Big 10 team with a bye not dance.  Obviously you think it could happen.  And that is your right. 

 

5.  Minnesota can't do better than 8-10.  And you do not know they will make it either.  If they do, it will be because of good out of conference play and strength of schedule.  That stuff matters a lot more than beating the worst team in the first round of the conference tourney. 

 

6.  You are completely using flawed logic at the end.  For starters we would not likely be 8 point dogs coming off a bye in the quarterfinal round.  And you say we would be favored in round 1.  You are correct.  But do you understand how small of a favorite we will be?  And what the chances are of losing such a game?  Doesn't seem like it.  It is best to avoid that game, even though it could give us a very slight RPI jump.   And we would have that same game anyway next round, that you think we would be 8 point dogs in.  Not to mention it is possible the 12 seed wins.  And then we would have a dream situation in the quarterfinals.  I really don't see us finishing top 4 in league and in tourney and missing dance. 

[HF_]

^^^ Nailed it on all points.

[atskooc]

Didn't Iowa finish fourth last year and not make the dance?

[unl]

Didn't Iowa finish fourth last year and not make the dance?

Last year Ohio State and Michigan State tied for second....and Michigan and Wisconsin tied for fourth.   So, really, Iowa finished 6th.

[Concrete]

Didn't Iowa finish fourth last year and not make the dance?

they finished 6th at 9-9

[uneblinstu]

Didn't Iowa finish fourth last year and not make the dance?

No, they finished sixth last year at 9-9. They finished tied for fourth in 2007 and were left out.

[unl]

 

Didn't Iowa finish fourth last year and not make the dance?

No, they finished sixth last year at 9-9. They finished tied for fourth in 2007 and were left out.

Yep, that year, they were in a 3-way tie for fourth, and were 17-14 overall.  

 

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/standings/_/year/2007

[atskooc]

Didn't Iowa finish fourth last year and not make the dance?

Last year Ohio State and Michigan State tied for second....and Michigan and Wisconsin tied for fourth.   So, really, Iowa finished 6th.

Thanks for the clarification!