They still earned a 2 seed. The topic wasn't how they'll perform in the NCAAT, but what seed they will earn. Which are you actually talking about?
ESPN way too early brackets, Iowa #2 seed
- Thread starter Scott559
- Start date
I take it you did not watch the two final runs and how much the starters played.
I find it interesting that people on here are blaming two of their worst games all year against FDU and Virginia on being tired. What's lost on them is that these are 20 year old women who just had 11 days off from playing any games making it their longest gap all season long. But they were tired. You can't make this shat up. More likely than anything is that the extended layoff between games hurt more than helped them.
Also, until we see Juju on the floor, we don't know if she can even play at her pre-injury caliber.
Bingo.
______
They didn't play well. It wasn't because they were tired. Seemed obvious to me, it was because they were young and had doubted themselves gaining the 2-seed after the UCLA game. It was a weight on them, and the entire team handled it poorly. Despite that, they were one free throw away from taking that weight off.
*And I think it's past time to flush that loss to a WNBA UCLA team. A shame they gave up after going down by 30 to let it get to 50, but ultimately the gap doesn't matter. Maybe South Carolina should pack it in after losing to UCLA by 30 in the national title game.
A team with the #1 recruits from three different classes and three more 5-star recruits is hard to go wrong. Juju won't even need to play 40 minutes or make 25 shots per game, which will be even better for her. But I'm also curious to see how this team will fit together because there are many 5-star players who play the same position and will have to adapt.
Yes the three #1 recruits essentially play the same position so I am curious how that dynamic plays out. Nice problem to have I guess.
Going to agree and disagree. I think if we play that game 10 times at Carver we win 8 but we just could not pull away. We played 4 of our 5 starters 49, 49, 49, 49 and then 36 minutes. Feurbach and Stremlow absolutely killed us, 3-20 from the field and Stremlow 1-10 from 3. And actually a lot of those were really good looks. I'm not sure being young had anything to do with anything. Stuelke 15 and 19. She was really good except of course the free throws late. Heiden had 26. Our bench scored 4 points and basically didn't play besides Houston. Jan clearly didn't trust Deal to give her any time because Feurbach was equally bad on both ends of the floor. I just think Jan wanted to trust her veteran in that case and it didn't work.
Everything in this game screamed that a lack of depth and a quality bench is a serious problem that could ruin a brilliant season [which started with 14 players on the Iowa roster]. They say every defeat teaches you something, and this defeat left us with such an obvious lesson that it's a little shocking that, at this point, some say that having 8 really very good players on the roster is enough.
Oh, I agree 100%. You never know about those things, and combined with the entire dynamic of the team being way different then pre her injury, I think people are jumping the gun a bit.
Maybe, and maybe not. Its certainly an interesting team dynamic. Its quite possible this is the only year they're all on the roster at USC.
I totally disagree. 8 very good players is more than enough to win championships. You need bench players as well, but they don't have to be of nearly the same caliber. I'll say it again for the 100th time. The six seniors on the championship UCLA team scored every point in the Final Four. Every. Freaking. Point.
They also played 99% of the minutes. Sienna Betts was the only other player to see minutes with 5 in the win vs Texas and 6 in the Duke game before that. The only reason more saw action vs SC was because it was a blowout. Only 7 players played meaningful minutes for them all year. The Michigan men also won their national championship only playing 8 players. This idea that Iowa sucked against FDU and Virginia because they were tired is ridiculous even ignoring the fact that Virginia played an OT game the night before while Iowa ate popcorn and watched.
I don't see anyone saying that anywhere. Where do you see that?
Edit-- okay, I read that wrong. Thought it was referencing total amount of players on the roster.
Given what you meant, I'll just say wanting more than 8 "really very good" players isn't going to happen for any team (not named UConn or SC) often.
Last edited:
The guards were all bad in that game. KF sucked. Stremlow sucked. Chitchat scored 21 but was only 8-22, 2-4 from the line, and had 5 turnovers against only 3 assists.
Quality depth surely matters, and would have helped Iowa in that Virginia game. Not sure anyone would argue that, but Iowa played the exact same against FDU. Tight, ready to choke--and they did. That is what a young team can do, get their head wrong
More experience for Chat, and she probably makes a better read to end regulation. More experience from Ava, and she makes the easy put-back with the hoop right in front of her to end OT1. The missed bunnies in the 4th were beyond the norm.
Yes, 8 times out of 10, Iowa wins, even with the same court times. They choked.
I don't know if you noticed, but in Iowa's decisive games, only three players were productive, and when we started the season with 14 players, many certainly considered that we had more than eight very good players. Looking back and comparing UCLA, which finished the season with six healthy players drafted by the WNBA, to Iowa's upcoming season, where nobody knows what will happen but we certainly won't have six senior players drafted by the WNBA, seems like a pointless comparison. It's blindly betting that we'll have eight healthy players producing at the level of six senior players drafted by the WNBA plus a #2 recruit in the recruiting class and one of the top U19 european players. It's betting on everything or nothing. It's basically making a mistake and, instead of correcting the mistake, preferring to double the bet. It might work out, but it could also go very wrong. If you don't have six senior players projected to be pick in the next draft, neither the #2 recruit in the class, nor one of the top U19 european players.t would be wiser to have a Plan A, a Plan B, and a Plan C.
Iowa's biggest problem was that they didn't start the year with 8 or 9 very good players. At the end they had 6 players sitting on the bench and none of them were a guard that Jan trusted.
I think she thought she 9-10 very solid players. Our starting 5 plus Stremlow, Deal a 5 star Freshman, Rodriguez, who I think everyone thought would be a very impactful player before the season started, Houston, and the Melligni and then slowly bringing along Hays. That’s 9 for sure who you thought would/could give meaningful minutes plus hoping Melligni could be healthy and Hays would improve throughout the season. So actually you had 11 going into the season. Obviously McCane went down, Rodriguez went AWOL, and Melligni either was never really healthy or Jan didn’t feel good about her. Deal played pretty well until the California trip and that ended her season. So that basically left Houston as the only real reliable bench player. Hays showed a few very small glimpses but not enough. So that’s what we were left with. **** happens.
People refuse to do the exercise of comparing where we are now [preseason] with the last preaseason, where many expectations was high but some expectations didn't materialize. That's the only comparison that makes sense now because it's impossible to compare the end of last season with a season that hasn't even started yet and it's impossible to say how it will end.
The biggest difference between this off-season and last off-season was that we had so many question marks last time. We thought we knew what Ava and Strem would be, and we were right about that (and Strem did improve her shooting over the off-season such that she did significantly improve). But we really didn't know what Mallegni, Rodriguez, Deal, Hays, or Chat were going to be capable of producing.
We also didn't know whether Hannah, Kylie, or McCabe were going to expand their game -- which needed to happen for this team to be better than the '24-'25 season. Everyone in general kind of hoped/assumed most if not all of our players would make strides in the off-season (or at least during the regular season) but tbh none of them did except Chat (who was much better than expected) and McCabe (who got better at defense, rebounding, and finding her shot).
Of course, we lost one of them. Deal and Mallegni were overrated relevant to their offer lists. Rodriguez basically dropped out. Hays had an underwhelming freshman year. Hannah and Kyle were the same players they always were--limited in one aspect or another.
In contrast, at this juncture in time, the top 6 players next year are all more capable of being real threats. They are all proven commodities -- we don't need to hope that any of them add an entirely new level to their game. If they each can only do what they have already done, this team is going to be a lot better than last year. Carnegie is going to be the best player on the team. Whiting will likely edge out Strem and Houston for a starting spot.
We do have to hope that Woliczko can live up to the hype, but she doesn't need to be the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th option -- she can be our 5th option, so long as she can play within herself and contribute in one way or another. We also have to hope that Hays can progress enough to contribute as the *8th* option. But that's a lot better of a position to be in than hoping our best player can become a perimeter threat and increase her FT% by 20+ pct over the summer.
Clearly the team hit a wall -- but I don't think "they were tired" covers it. They certainly *were* tired -- but I think the pressure also caught up with them. They had never had a tourney run together. The L to UCLA f*cked with their heads. I don't think most teams have to feel the pressure of having so many fans and sold out crowds. Most teams play for 3,000 fans and only have 15k IG followers. The regular season had no expectations and the team played free -- they were having fun. It led to them massively over-performing. Once post-season arrived, they got in their heads. Having this year under their belt will be huge for them -- and they'll also be better conditioned as well.
I get that things can always go wrong, but that's life. Last season was full of growing pains. This team is poised to do great things. We're lucky we had so many sophomores this year (and to think we might actually get 3 more seasons with all of them is pretty crazy as well). Jan will get us to 11 or 12 players. Only 9 will get real minutes. If everyone stays healthy, it'll be a fun season. If not, that's life. Basketball isn't for the weak of heart!
We also didn't know whether Hannah, Kylie, or McCabe were going to expand their game -- which needed to happen for this team to be better than the '24-'25 season. Everyone in general kind of hoped/assumed most if not all of our players would make strides in the off-season (or at least during the regular season) but tbh none of them did except Chat (who was much better than expected) and McCabe (who got better at defense, rebounding, and finding her shot).
Of course, we lost one of them. Deal and Mallegni were overrated relevant to their offer lists. Rodriguez basically dropped out. Hays had an underwhelming freshman year. Hannah and Kyle were the same players they always were--limited in one aspect or another.
In contrast, at this juncture in time, the top 6 players next year are all more capable of being real threats. They are all proven commodities -- we don't need to hope that any of them add an entirely new level to their game. If they each can only do what they have already done, this team is going to be a lot better than last year. Carnegie is going to be the best player on the team. Whiting will likely edge out Strem and Houston for a starting spot.
We do have to hope that Woliczko can live up to the hype, but she doesn't need to be the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th option -- she can be our 5th option, so long as she can play within herself and contribute in one way or another. We also have to hope that Hays can progress enough to contribute as the *8th* option. But that's a lot better of a position to be in than hoping our best player can become a perimeter threat and increase her FT% by 20+ pct over the summer.
Clearly the team hit a wall -- but I don't think "they were tired" covers it. They certainly *were* tired -- but I think the pressure also caught up with them. They had never had a tourney run together. The L to UCLA f*cked with their heads. I don't think most teams have to feel the pressure of having so many fans and sold out crowds. Most teams play for 3,000 fans and only have 15k IG followers. The regular season had no expectations and the team played free -- they were having fun. It led to them massively over-performing. Once post-season arrived, they got in their heads. Having this year under their belt will be huge for them -- and they'll also be better conditioned as well.
I get that things can always go wrong, but that's life. Last season was full of growing pains. This team is poised to do great things. We're lucky we had so many sophomores this year (and to think we might actually get 3 more seasons with all of them is pretty crazy as well). Jan will get us to 11 or 12 players. Only 9 will get real minutes. If everyone stays healthy, it'll be a fun season. If not, that's life. Basketball isn't for the weak of heart!
Right. The good news is that we have a lot fewer unknowns and a lot more proven production coming into next year than we had this past year. Hannah and Ava were really the only 2 proven offensive threats coming in. Jan's projected starting lineup included 3 guards that had averaged around 20ppg combined the year prior. Not exactly a recipe for offensive success. Thank goodness CCW made huge strides, because KF and McCabe did not.
Next year's projected 3 starting guards averaged 39 ppg this past year (+19) against top competition and all of them were sophomores. Add in another proven commodity in Whiting who will compete for a starting spot along with reserve Faison and you have an excellent guard group that is light year's better and deeper than this past year.
At the 5 Ava is an All American and Layla has a year of experience upon which to draw. Hopefully her progress as a reserve becomes notable.
The only real unknown at this point, assuming no major portal adds, is whether Journey, who had an excellent freshman campaign or McKenna who needs to prove herself against college competition will be starting at the 4. In either case the position looks to be in good hands next year.
Well, I think last season's team was very good and exceeded expectations in the off-season. I don't think anyone expected Iowa to reach the BIG finals, but that wasn't enough to advance beyond Round 32. So I think maybe we're underestimating how much better the team needs to be to evolve and reach the level we need to go beyond what we did last season. We're also underestimating that all the teams are improving, and it seems to me that the BIG will be much more difficult than it was. I agree that the core of the next team is really very good. Chit Chat, Dani, and Ava are at an All-Big Team level, which is incredible. Amari Whiting is an upgrade compared to Kylie; it's not a huge difference, but it's an upgrade. But we lost Hannah, and there are still doubts about whether anyone will do what she did. I'm also not sure if we'll have a sharpshooter from the deep like McCabe. You mentioned the pressure of having done well in the regular season; I can't assess that, but pressure will always exist. If you think about it that way, will they feel the pressure of being #6 in the off-season rankings? I don't know, it's subjective and difficult to assess, but the objective difference is that we no longer have three senior players like we had with Hannah, McCabe, and Kylie. We only have Amari Whiting, but she's just joining the group now, coming from outside. Anyway, I think it's a really, really good base, a team that, in theory, is much better than the previous one. My point is the problem of lack of depth. We started with 14 players last season and our biggest transfer didn't work out, our sharpshooter got injured, our 5-star recruit fell short of expectations, but even so, we had a great regular season because we had a deep roster to solve the problems that happen during the season, like the six players who missed some [or many] games due to minor or serious injuries. But now, with 8 very good players, we're betting that no problems will happen, so it's not important to have a deep and high-quality bench. It's a strange vision and a very risky bet, because we had problems with a lack of depth starting the season with 14 players, and in crucial moments Stremlow, Hays, and Houston weren't the solutions we needed, but now they're part of the eight certainties. They're great, but for me they're still question marks, just like Woliczko. But I agree that if no problems arise, it's a very good team, but i just think it's unrealistic and even irresponsible to think we won't have problems and not prepare with plans B, C, and D in case problems arise. I still have hope that this issue of lack of depth will be resolved with a few more quality signings, because knowing that we started a season with 14 players and still had this depth problem that hampered us tremendously, and ignoring that this lack of depth is a serious problem that could hinder us even more, doesn't make sense to me.
And you think that's enough? Iowa started the last season with 14 players and in the decisive games McCabe, Jada, Mallegni, and Rodriguez were unavailable. Can you understand that if we started last season with nine players, we would arrive at the decisive games with only 5 players available? To err is human, to persist in error is stupid.
No. I was just reading your post where you said Iowa had 8 players. There are currently 9.
I think however that you're going to have to accept the fact that in the real world most teams, Iowa included, don't have much quality depth beyond the first 8 or 9 players. That would have included the men's and women's championship teams this year.
What I think you still haven't understood is that when we say depth is important, we're not saying we need to have a quality bench with 10 available players. Depth is important because many problems happen during the season, and you can start with 14 players and end up with 9 available players. So, considering starting with 9 players and being sure that all of them will be available 100% of the games, or that the 10th, 11th, and 12th players can be anyone because they certainly won't have a PT, seems crazy to me.
I'm not convinced we were actually "deep" last year -- we really only had 6 actually reliable options to put on the floor who could both score and defend (even if only in a limited way -- i.e., Kylie, McCabe, Stuelke), and then Deal as a better-than-no-one back-up PG. We had a lot of raw people on the roster who didn't pan out. By crunch time, that was obvious.
The reason we had so many more people on the team was that our most expensive players were cheaper than this year, so we could afford a lot more people on the bench who couldn't really earn minutes. This year we spent a million on Carnegie. If she's healthy, she's better than all 5 outbound transfers combined. If she's not, we're probably no better than we were this year.
I'm not sure you're ready to hear this but I think this may not be the sport for you. It's May and you're already spiraling (even though we are in a very enviable position as a pre-season 2 seed, #6 ranking, and having major contributors coming in). I don't see things changing anytime. Jan is going to sign 2-3 more players but they're not going to be very good. Iowa already puts *way* more money from rev share toward WBB than the majority of its peers, so it's not going to take even more from Football/Men's BB/Wrestling. We're just not going to come into an additional million dollars at this time (unless CC22 can be convinced to become a benefactor, I'd guess).
In other words, I think this is just how it's going to be for Iowa Wbb. We're going to be a Top 10 team, and we're going to compete for a B1G championship. But we may lose games! We can afford some top players, but they may get injured. We got really used to having a healthy team in the CC22 era but it's back to reality now.
Serious question, have you tried daily medication? I went on Citalopram a few years ago and honestly it's great -- it takes the edge off of silly things that shouldn't be stressing you out. If that's not of interest, there are also many other hobbies out there where you can engage in much more peacefully without so much stress! Or other TV shows! Have you considered RuPaul's Drag Race or The Real Housewives of [Insert your local city/region here]? Far less anxiety, many more laughs -- great distractions.
Last edited:
I don't think I'd include KF in any group of players that could score and defend. She averaged 5ppg and only 2 points over the last 4 games.
I'm not stressed, lol. If you open any social media platform and read what people write about sports, practically 100% of them will be giving unsolicited opinions or criticizing something they wish were different or better. It's the nature of sports and social media. If that stresses you out, you can use your own suggestions to occupy yourself with something else or simply not read my comments. Unless you own the forum and can ban me because my opinions differ from yours, and you can't tolerate that, i'll continue commenting. And rest assured that if I need any suggestions, I'll ask people I know in the real world.
I think we shouldn't expect anything from people we don't know, Ms. or Mr. Yasqueen. Look, at no point did I get stressed or freak out here. I always treated everyone with politeness and respect, I never disrespected the forum rules, I never tried to silence anyone, offend anyone, gaslight anyone, or diagnose anyone. If you don't handle diversity of opinions and freedom of expression well, try to resolve that in therapy, because it's quite weirdo to try to diagnose or silence someone. people you don't know just because you don't like their opinion. Now, if you don't mind, can we continue the discussion about Iowa WBB? Thank you.
Last edited:
Can anyone give me a good reason why the women's tournament needs to expand to 76 teams with the men?
Answer assuming I already know why they did it........I'm just looking for an actual "good" reason.
Answer assuming I already know why they did it........I'm just looking for an actual "good" reason.
I doubt there was any discussion on just expanding one.
If they had just expanded the men...sounds like another chance for the NCAA to spend millions on lawyers defending the lawsuits they know they would lose.
And that is obvious. But then what you do is you negotiate with whoever represents the women's side, and find out where they stand. If they truly believe that expanding the tournament is good for them, and they won't be budge, then yes, the NCAA "had no choice" but to include them.
I would think that the NCAA would want it public that they tried to reason with the women's side that expanding wasn't in their best interest, rightfully so, and that the women's representation decided against it.
It would not have been in their best interest to do anything like that.
The backlash would be horrific
But see what kind of backlash.........we're ready to move past the "we want to be included too" phase of social commentary. It's already been happening in a lot of different mediums, including sports.
No more "not doing what's right because it might hurt a subsection of the population's feelings".
They should have spent that time off practicing their free throws.