| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Who will win the new, expanded Big Ten |
| Iowa |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| Maryland |
|
24% |
[ 11 ] |
| Michigan State |
|
8% |
[ 4 ] |
| Minnesota |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| Nebraska |
|
22% |
[ 10 ] |
| Penn State |
|
6% |
[ 3 ] |
| Purdue |
|
2% |
[ 1 ] |
| Rutgers |
|
13% |
[ 6 ] |
| Other (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Northwestern, Ohio State, Wisconsin) |
|
8% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 45 |
|
| Author |
Message |
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
 Posted: 06/12/14 11:08 am ::: Who will win the new, expanded Big Ten? |
Reply  |
|
This should be a very interesting and exciting year of basketball in the Big Ten with the addition of Maryland, fresh off a Final Four, and Rutgers, fresh off the WNIT championship. Both teams gained very valuable experience and will look to challenge for the conference title in their first year.
Who do you think will win this year's women's basketball championship for the Big Ten?
|
|
Colerr
Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Posts: 569
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/14 11:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Rutgers.
They have everyone but one bench player coming back, & added a few good/needed pieces.
|
|
dinkytown
Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 2591
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/14 2:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
With Theriot, Laudermill, and Cady, NU has the best core of three in the league. Sample returns to her starting F spot, and Havers (6'5" soph center) looked like she's ready to step up and play in the B10 tournament (17 pts on 6/7 shooting vs MSU). I was a big Hooper fan, but it's very possible they'll be a better team playing more team ball and not looking for Hooper all the time.
My 1-4 would be NU, MD, MSU, PSU. After that it's up for grabs.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/14 2:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Colerr wrote: |
Rutgers.
They have everyone but one bench player coming back, & added a few good/needed pieces. |
With those returning players, who did they beat? Not a single ranked team. Lost to UConn, to Louisville, to LSU. Even lost to UMass. It was that total absence of meaningful wins which was why their gaudy record didn't get them into the NCAA tournament.
Best wins were USF (with whom they split) and Bowling Green. The Big 10 may not be terrific but there are quite a few teams better than anyone Rutgers beat last year.
Rutgers has a LOT to prove.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/14 5:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Colerr wrote: |
Rutgers.
They have everyone but one bench player coming back, & added a few good/needed pieces. |
With those returning players, who did they beat? Not a single ranked team. Lost to UConn, to Louisville, to LSU. Even lost to UMass. It was that total absence of meaningful wins which was why their gaudy record didn't get them into the NCAA tournament.
Best wins were USF (with whom they split) and Bowling Green. The Big 10 may not be terrific but there are quite a few teams better than anyone Rutgers beat last year.
Rutgers has a LOT to prove. |
As I think is well known, I make no predictions, and I would be loathe to do so now with a conference I don't know so well, but I will agree that Rutgers has something to prove. On the whole, I think that's good news, as CVS prefers to play as the underdog (whether or not her team actually is).
And I'm going to differ a bit on why RU didn't get into the tournament - it wasn't that the team didn't beat good enough teams, but that it lost to bad teams (and I include the USF home loss in that category, although USF was almost in the RPI top 50). Win one of UMass, Memphis and USF, and they have a good shot. Win two of those and they're in. They ended up with 8 wins against RPI top 100 teams, after all, and more than half of their losses were against the eventual national champion and an Elite 8 team.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/14 6:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Colerr wrote: |
Rutgers.
They have everyone but one bench player coming back, & added a few good/needed pieces. |
With those returning players, who did they beat? Not a single ranked team. Lost to UConn, to Louisville, to LSU. Even lost to UMass. It was that total absence of meaningful wins which was why their gaudy record didn't get them into the NCAA tournament.
Best wins were USF (with whom they split) and Bowling Green. The Big 10 may not be terrific but there are quite a few teams better than anyone Rutgers beat last year.
Rutgers has a LOT to prove. |
As I think is well known, I make no predictions, and I would be loathe to do so now with a conference I don't know so well, but I will agree that Rutgers has something to prove. On the whole, I think that's good news, as CVS prefers to play as the underdog (whether or not her team actually is).
And I'm going to differ a bit on why RU didn't get into the tournament - it wasn't that the team didn't beat good enough teams, but that it lost to bad teams (and I include the USF home loss in that category, although USF was almost in the RPI top 50). Win one of UMass, Memphis and USF, and they have a good shot. Win two of those and they're in. They ended up with 8 wins against RPI top 100 teams, after all, and more than half of their losses were against the eventual national champion and an Elite 8 team. |
We're not going to agree.on this. I think most commentators believed it was because they had failed to show they could beat a tournament level opponent.
But regardless of the reasons for their exclusion from the NCAA tournament, the fact remains that those returning players have not demonstrated that they can beat teams in the top half or more of the Big 10. Maybe they can and will, but last year doesn't demonstrate it. Which is why I said they have a lot to prove.
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/14 7:28 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| And I'm going to differ a bit on why RU didn't get into the tournament - it wasn't that the team didn't beat good enough teams, but that it lost to bad teams (and I include the USF home loss in that category, although USF was almost in the RPI top 50). Win one of UMass, Memphis and USF, and they have a good shot. Win two of those and they're in. They ended up with 8 wins against RPI top 100 teams, after all, and more than half of their losses were against the eventual national champion and an Elite 8 team. |
We're not going to agree.on this. I think most commentators believed it was because they had failed to show they could beat a tournament level opponent.
But regardless of the reasons for their exclusion from the NCAA tournament, the fact remains that those returning players have not demonstrated that they can beat teams in the top half or more of the Big 10. Maybe they can and will, but last year doesn't demonstrate it. Which is why I said they have a lot to prove. |
To be blunt, most commentators have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to bubble teams. Based on the history of what the committee actually does (as opposed to what it says - and this is a key point), the notion that you need to beat tournament-bound teams is not accurate. After all, nearly every year, a couple of teams get in as at large entries that have beaten nobody anyone considers impressive. RPI top-100 wins and bad losses are a much better indicator. (This is one advantage of doing a yearly rundown of who's likely to get in and who isn't, and keeping a database of the teams that are in and out every year - You get a much better idea of what actually gets teams into the tournament.) RU had two really stinky losses and one other loss (USF) that pushed the team down a spot in the AAC standings and made the team's RPI top 100 record meaningfully more mediocre. Those losses were much more significant than not beating UConn or Louisville.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/14 9:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| And I'm going to differ a bit on why RU didn't get into the tournament - it wasn't that the team didn't beat good enough teams, but that it lost to bad teams (and I include the USF home loss in that category, although USF was almost in the RPI top 50). Win one of UMass, Memphis and USF, and they have a good shot. Win two of those and they're in. They ended up with 8 wins against RPI top 100 teams, after all, and more than half of their losses were against the eventual national champion and an Elite 8 team. |
We're not going to agree.on this. I think most commentators believed it was because they had failed to show they could beat a tournament level opponent.
But regardless of the reasons for their exclusion from the NCAA tournament, the fact remains that those returning players have not demonstrated that they can beat teams in the top half or more of the Big 10. Maybe they can and will, but last year doesn't demonstrate it. Which is why I said they have a lot to prove. |
To be blunt, most commentators have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to bubble teams. Based on the history of what the committee actually does (as opposed to what it says - and this is a key point), the notion that you need to beat tournament-bound teams is not accurate. After all, nearly every year, a couple of teams get in as at large entries that have beaten nobody anyone considers impressive. RPI top-100 wins and bad losses are a much better indicator. (This is one advantage of doing a yearly rundown of who's likely to get in and who isn't, and keeping a database of the teams that are in and out every year - You get a much better idea of what actually gets teams into the tournament.) RU had two really stinky losses and one other loss (USF) that pushed the team down a spot in the AAC standings and made the team's RPI top 100 record meaningfully more mediocre. Those losses were much more significant than not beating UConn or Louisville. |
It wasn't the understandable failure to beat UConn and Louisville, it was the combination of playing a horrible conference schedule other than those two but then scheduling on OCC slate with 8 out of 11 being RPI 150+ teams. The best team they beat was USF which itself failed to make the tournament.
One legit win and everyone would have ignored UMass and Memphis. If they had beaten UMass, they still wouldn't have been in.
Stringer made her own bed. They weren't going to reward her for beating 22 nobodies.
|
|
Colerr
Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Posts: 569
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/14 9:05 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I agree that we have a lot to prove, but I have a very good feeling about this group next year.
Also one thing I think that hurt us is that we didn't have any big game experience expect perhaps LSU(which we almost won) until late January if I recall correctly.
Even CVS has said that she takes the blame about our schedule last year, it was a risk that she took to build confidence in a young team that backfired some what.
Our schedule for this year based on the limited game we know about will be very telling & exciting.
Tennessee @ the RAC.
UNC @ The RAC
@LSU
So we should get a pretty good idea what this RU team is made of early on.
Also I can't wait to see the jump Tyler Scaife makes from her freshman season to her Sophomore one.
|
|
NoDakSt
Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/14 9:14 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Watch out for KBA and Michigan. They may not win the conference but they are dangerous. Kim has had a chance to work her magicks and she has most of her key contributors returning plus she has worked in her own players. I think they Be-LIVE!!
I like Nebraska because Theroit is a solid pointy and they have expereince players plus I highly recruited class coming in.
Rutgers will be in the running as defensively they are rock solid. But lack of a three point game makes them simpler to defend.
Marylands backcourt will be fast.
Michigan State has explosive sophomores.
LOGICally, I pick Iowa.
|
|
terpsforever
Joined: 17 Jul 2011
Posts: 1233
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/14 9:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Maryland should kill the competition
|
|
beknighted
Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/12/14 9:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| And I'm going to differ a bit on why RU didn't get into the tournament - it wasn't that the team didn't beat good enough teams, but that it lost to bad teams (and I include the USF home loss in that category, although USF was almost in the RPI top 50). Win one of UMass, Memphis and USF, and they have a good shot. Win two of those and they're in. They ended up with 8 wins against RPI top 100 teams, after all, and more than half of their losses were against the eventual national champion and an Elite 8 team. |
We're not going to agree.on this. I think most commentators believed it was because they had failed to show they could beat a tournament level opponent.
But regardless of the reasons for their exclusion from the NCAA tournament, the fact remains that those returning players have not demonstrated that they can beat teams in the top half or more of the Big 10. Maybe they can and will, but last year doesn't demonstrate it. Which is why I said they have a lot to prove. |
To be blunt, most commentators have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to bubble teams. Based on the history of what the committee actually does (as opposed to what it says - and this is a key point), the notion that you need to beat tournament-bound teams is not accurate. After all, nearly every year, a couple of teams get in as at large entries that have beaten nobody anyone considers impressive. RPI top-100 wins and bad losses are a much better indicator. (This is one advantage of doing a yearly rundown of who's likely to get in and who isn't, and keeping a database of the teams that are in and out every year - You get a much better idea of what actually gets teams into the tournament.) RU had two really stinky losses and one other loss (USF) that pushed the team down a spot in the AAC standings and made the team's RPI top 100 record meaningfully more mediocre. Those losses were much more significant than not beating UConn or Louisville. |
It wasn't the understandable failure to beat UConn and Louisville, it was the combination of playing a horrible conference schedule other than those two but then scheduling on OCC slate with 8 out of 11 being RPI 150+ teams. The best team they beat was USF which itself failed to make the tournament.
One legit win and everyone would have ignored UMass and Memphis. If they had beaten UMass, they still wouldn't have been in.
Stringer made her own bed. They weren't going to reward her for beating 22 nobodies. |
I will respectfully disagree based on about 15 years of history of what the committee actually does.
In any event, I still don't make any prediction about where RU - or anybody - else will finish in the B1G.
Edited to add one thing I meant to mention before:
I think a fair number of people were, in their minds, treating the AAC as a pretty terrible conference after maybe the top 4 teams (say, comparable to the MVC or Horizon), and deciding that RU's schedule was no good on that basis. Despite a worse than usual OOC schedule (which did, I should note, include a win over a team that ended up with an 8 seed), Rutgers actually played 15 games against RPI top 100 teams in the regular season. That's more than Brigham Young, and just two less than St. John's. Brigham Young had the same number of RPI top 100 wins as Rutgers, and one more RPI top 50 win. This is not, mind you, an argument that RU should have been in, but I think it does show that RU did have qualifications that were comparable to teams that did make it, but for the bad losses.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005
Posts: 8227
Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 12:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm interested to see Minnesota with Rachel Banham and the Viking-African giantess Amanda Zahui B., as well as Michigan State with super soph Aerial Powers and Suzy Wonder Woman.
Rutgers can't be overlooked, of course, since they were hammer forged in the incomparable competitive hell fires of the AAC last season. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 12:59 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
I will respectfully disagree based on about 15 years of history of what the committee actually does.
In any event, I still don't make any prediction about where RU - or anybody - else will finish in the B1G.
Edited to add one thing I meant to mention before:
I think a fair number of people were, in their minds, treating the AAC as a pretty terrible conference after maybe the top 4 teams (say, comparable to the MVC or Horizon), and deciding that RU's schedule was no good on that basis. Despite a worse than usual OOC schedule (which did, I should note, include a win over a team that ended up with an 8 seed), Rutgers actually played 15 games against RPI top 100 teams in the regular season. That's more than Brigham Young, and just two less than St. John's. Brigham Young had the same number of RPI top 100 wins as Rutgers, and one more RPI top 50 win. This is not, mind you, an argument that RU should have been in, but I think it does show that RU did have qualifications that were comparable to teams that did make it, but for the bad losses. |
I think BYU proves the opposite. They beat #16 Gonzaga at the end of the season. Rutgers had no win remotely comparable. It was that big win rather than any absence of bad losses that got BYU in.
Look, you and I aren't going to agree on this. We had the same disagreement before the selections were made. You thought RU would get in; I thought the lack of any respectable wins would keep them out. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 63778
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 2:32 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Best core of three: Banham, Zahui, and Wagner. Fear the Gopher!
_________________
Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 7:51 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| beknighted wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| beknighted wrote: |
| And I'm going to differ a bit on why RU didn't get into the tournament - it wasn't that the team didn't beat good enough teams, but that it lost to bad teams (and I include the USF home loss in that category, although USF was almost in the RPI top 50). Win one of UMass, Memphis and USF, and they have a good shot. Win two of those and they're in. They ended up with 8 wins against RPI top 100 teams, after all, and more than half of their losses were against the eventual national champion and an Elite 8 team. |
We're not going to agree.on this. I think most commentators believed it was because they had failed to show they could beat a tournament level opponent.
But regardless of the reasons for their exclusion from the NCAA tournament, the fact remains that those returning players have not demonstrated that they can beat teams in the top half or more of the Big 10. Maybe they can and will, but last year doesn't demonstrate it. Which is why I said they have a lot to prove. |
To be blunt, most commentators have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to bubble teams. Based on the history of what the committee actually does (as opposed to what it says - and this is a key point), the notion that you need to beat tournament-bound teams is not accurate. After all, nearly every year, a couple of teams get in as at large entries that have beaten nobody anyone considers impressive. RPI top-100 wins and bad losses are a much better indicator. (This is one advantage of doing a yearly rundown of who's likely to get in and who isn't, and keeping a database of the teams that are in and out every year - You get a much better idea of what actually gets teams into the tournament.) RU had two really stinky losses and one other loss (USF) that pushed the team down a spot in the AAC standings and made the team's RPI top 100 record meaningfully more mediocre. Those losses were much more significant than not beating UConn or Louisville. |
When I was coaching (and doing the scheduling for the schools I was at), it was explained to me on a couple of different occasions that a bad loss will hurt you much more than a good win will help you. One of those occasions came from our Athletic Director, who was also serving on the NCAA Selection Committee. They look at it as if you challenge yourself against good teams, that's one thing but to lose to a team outside the top150ish or so is unacceptable if you want to be considered one of the top 40 or 50 teams in the country (remember, there are only 31 at-large bids so the reality is those teams are most likely better than the automatic entrants from most of the conferences).
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 9:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
That's nice. But here's what selection committee chair Carolyne Henry said in the context of Minnesota:
“When we were looking at the last four in, one of the things we noted was that the last four had multiple wins over top-50 teams,” Henry said. “While there were some losses in those columns, most of them had more top 50 wins than those that were left out.”
And here's what she said about USF:
“When we were looking at South Florida, and it was a challenge when we looked at the last four in, the last four out, one of the things that we noted about South Florida is they had no wins in the Top 50, then they had one win above 60 in the RPI,’’ Henry said. “They were 0 8 in the Top 50. Those were pretty significant factors when you get down do the nitty gritty determining who is going to be in, not going to be in. On top of that they had a 57 RPI. Again, the no wins in the Top 50 and actually going 0 8, then they had one win above 60 in the RPI. They were one of the last four out.’’
Interesting that in both instances she blamed the lack of good wins rather than the presence of bad losses. But heck, what does she know.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 10:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
That's nice. But here's what selection committee chair Carolyne Henry said in the context of Minnesota:
“When we were looking at the last four in, one of the things we noted was that the last four had multiple wins over top-50 teams,” Henry said. “While there were some losses in those columns, most of them had more top 50 wins than those that were left out.”
And here's what she said about USF:
“When we were looking at South Florida, and it was a challenge when we looked at the last four in, the last four out, one of the things that we noted about South Florida is they had no wins in the Top 50, then they had one win above 60 in the RPI,’’ Henry said. “They were 0 8 in the Top 50. Those were pretty significant factors when you get down do the nitty gritty determining who is going to be in, not going to be in. On top of that they had a 57 RPI. Again, the no wins in the Top 50 and actually going 0 8, then they had one win above 60 in the RPI. They were one of the last four out.’’
Interesting that in both instances she blamed the lack of good wins rather than the presence of bad losses. But heck, what does she know. |
That's nice...interesting to note that USF had 2 losses outside the top 100 (#147 Charleston and #160 Clemson) which prevented them from getting in. If they hadn't lost those games, they would have made the tourney. In other words, the reason why they weren't already in and were being considered so late was due to those losses. Had they won those games, they would have been in regardless of top 50 wins.
No one said that top 50 wins don't help...lol. However, bad losses kill a team.
|
|
bacabuck
Joined: 28 May 2009
Posts: 245
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 10:21 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| purduefanatic wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
That's nice. But here's what selection committee chair Carolyne Henry said in the context of Minnesota:
“When we were looking at the last four in, one of the things we noted was that the last four had multiple wins over top-50 teams,” Henry said. “While there were some losses in those columns, most of them had more top 50 wins than those that were left out.”
And here's what she said about USF:
“When we were looking at South Florida, and it was a challenge when we looked at the last four in, the last four out, one of the things that we noted about South Florida is they had no wins in the Top 50, then they had one win above 60 in the RPI,’’ Henry said. “They were 0 8 in the Top 50. Those were pretty significant factors when you get down do the nitty gritty determining who is going to be in, not going to be in. On top of that they had a 57 RPI. Again, the no wins in the Top 50 and actually going 0 8, then they had one win above 60 in the RPI. They were one of the last four out.’’
Interesting that in both instances she blamed the lack of good wins rather than the presence of bad losses. But heck, what does she know. |
That's nice...interesting to note that USF had 2 losses outside the top 100 (#147 Charleston and #160 Clemson) which prevented them from getting in. If they hadn't lost those games, they would have made the tourney. In other words, the reason why they weren't already in and were being considered so late was due to those losses. Had they won those games, they would have been in regardless of top 50 wins.
No one said that top 50 wins don't help...lol. However, bad losses kill a team. |
Wow. I didn't know you were on the committee. You should call Henry and straighten her out.
One win by USF over a top 25 team and the losses wouldn't have mattered. That win over Gonzaga got BYU in despite a loss to #186. Both the men's and women's committees have consistantly said for years that you have to have shown you can win against tournament level competition. But if you want to ignore what they say and do, be my guest.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 10:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
Wow. I didn't know you were on the committee. You should call Henry and straighten her out.
One win by USF over a top 25 team and the losses wouldn't have mattered. That win over Gonzaga got BYU in despite a loss to #186. Both the men's and women's committees have consistantly said for years that you have to have shown you can win against tournament level competition. But if you want to ignore what they say and do, be my guest. |
Pretty sure that BYU having 25 wins and a top 35 RPI led them to being selected...not just that single win over Gonzaga.
Again, I was directly told to schedule carefully in regards to our non-conference games because a bad loss would absolutely kill us. I was at a mid-major at the time and we were going to be pretty good and possibly be in position for an at-large if something happened in our conference tournament.
You can continue to use little snide remarks all you want...your pompous, thinking you know everything attitude has certainly rubbed most people on here the wrong way.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 10:53 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Deleted.
Just not worth continuing this discussion. Henry's words speak for themselves.
|
|
TotalCardinalMove
Joined: 13 Oct 2013
Posts: 1466
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 11:09 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| People seem to be forgetting about the Hawkeyes. Iowa only loses one starter from this past season. They return Logic, Dixon, Disterhoft, and Doolittle. This team was in the Big Ten Final.
|
|
purduefanatic
Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 2819
Location: Indiana
Back to top |
| Posted: 06/13/14 11:12 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| TotalCardinalMove wrote: |
| People seem to be forgetting about the Hawkeyes. Iowa only loses one starter from this past season. They return Logic, Dixon, Disterhoft, and Doolittle. This team was in the Big Ten Final. |
I agree...I think they are going to be very, very good. Logic is a great player...I wish she got all the pub that Lucas had while at Penn State because she is a much better all around player.
|
|
|
|
