CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
:lol: yes it does. Not my problem, since it wasn't me. I do think Virginia *should* have been in over MTSU, but we know the committee loves to be PC to a few mid-majors these days.
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
2012-13 Bubble Watch
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
:lol: yes it does. Not my problem, since it wasn't me. I do think Virginia *should* have been in over MTSU, but we know the committee loves to be PC to a few mid-majors these days.
If your conference schedule does not offer quality competition, you should have to play a tougher noncon to close the gap. But the committee doesn't look at it that way. Instead, they say "your conference is your conference, we want you all to play similarly tough noncon schedules". It doesn't make sense, but programs should listen. It kept us out of the Dance in 2011. Tad needs to make sure that's never again the reason we get left looking at NIT brackets.
Not that it upsets me but it appears that the ACC didn't get much respect with 2 possible 1-seeds getting relegated to the 2nd line and only 4 teams getting in.
Yup, the love for the mid-majors has gotten a bit carried away. Nothing shows that point more than this stat:
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
That 6 number sounds awfully familiar, doesn't it? CU had 6 in 2011, although not with the amount of terrible losses.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Kentucky visits Robert Morris in the NIT First Round (due to Big Dance games being played at Rupp). Good lord.
:lol: talk about a year over year change.
Once again, I'm not an ACC supporter but it's odd that the A-10 got more teams in than the ACC. UVa had 3 times more Top 50 wins than La Salle.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Yep, tell me UVA wouldn't compete at a higher level than MTSU, La Salle or St. Mary's in their conferences. It's a joke. Let's not sit here and bull**** -- we give the little guy extra wiggle room these days, let's not pretend otherwise. Bilas is absolutely correct
CUwhit21
Club Member
He definitely is. But, we're at least seeing some form of consistency from the committee. If our 2011 snub wasn't a warning to all schools out there then I don't know what else to call it. I'm just glad we learned from it. If you're gonna play a **** OOC schedule then you better not lose to RPI 200+ (or even 300+ teams). The committee will look more favorably on a ~25+ win midmajor with few top 100 wins.
Yup, as Bilas said it's not who you played and who you beat, these days it seems to be more about who you lost to.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
aik
Well-Known Member
UVA beating a higher seed in a game or two is a solid but not unfathomable upset. The gamble that MTSU or La Salle goes neck and neck with a power conference team or even beats them helps the committee favor them. It's nowhere close to fair but a given that the committee favors what's going to draw eyeballs to the TV for the viewer who isn't a fan of either team in a particular matchup but gives a damn because of an upset bracket pick or interest in seeing David slay Goliath. That is the media-driven sports world we are living in.
cubuffs85
Active Member
I'm not sure how Miami wins the ACC regular/Tourney and gets a #2 seed. All-in-all, the fact were complaining about seeds and not snubs shows the committee did a good job this year. People are always going to complain. That's just how these things work.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that while Miami has been highly impressive at times, this is also a team that lost to Florida Gulf Coast (by 12), lost to Indiana State, got slaughtered at Wake Forest, and just last week lost to Georgia Tech at home. I know they're very good when they're on, but that's the ugliest set of losses you'll ever see for someone with a legitimate argument for a 1 seed.
cubuffs85
Active Member
Florida Gulf Coast is a tournament team. And my understanding is they lost that game without a significant player. Also, they did just make the tournament, so that makes that loss more tolerable IMO. I discount earlier losses. I think every #1 team has it's warts this year. I still think winning a conference like the ACC's regular season/tournament can NOT be discounted. If there name was Kentucky instead of Miami, would they have been #2 seed?
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
I said all this knowing exactly that about FGCU. Still, we're talking 1 seed here. What 1 seed would ever have losses like that? They got the 1 seeds right, IMO (and you know I pay attention heavily to the ACC, as you do as well). Let's also be realistic: Miami won the ACC tournament with as tame a path as you'll EVER see due to Maryland's upset and Carolina being down.
cubuffs85
Active Member
The whole sport is down this year -- I've never seen so much parity before -- all the #1 seeds going down. Has any team won both the regular season and tournament in the ACC and STILL not gotten a #1 seed? The only reason I can tolerate this is because Duke didn't get a #1. Atleast were arguing about seeds and NOT snubs.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Miami is the first to not be a 1. The whole sport is down, but the ACC was REALLY down. Anyway, in the long run, not a big difference. Sure, no 1 seed has ever blown a first game. I recognize how good Miami is at times, but we've also seen them struggle to beat mediocre and bad teams....along with the aforementioned bad losses. If we got Miami (no, I'm not over-looking Illinois) on one of their off-days, we would find ourselves heading into the final minutes with a legitimate chance to win, IMO. I am very comfortable with it being Miami in Austin (compared to potential alternatives like Louisville in Lexington, Indiana in Dayton). And yes, I do believe a team with like Miami with zero experience of going deep in the Dance is a much better opponent than a team that's here every year and knows how to do the job. (yes, I recognize we're largely in the same boat as Miami in that regard, but last year's experience was vital).
cubuffs85
Active Member
All things considered I thought we got a pretty good draw, I agree with a lot of your take here. I still expect Miami to beat us, but it wouldn't be an upset of monumental proportions if we won.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Don't forget, we're big Pacific fans this week too :thumbsup:.
Also, let's look at some of Miami's wins: BC by 1, Clemson by 2, UVA by 4, Maryland by 7. (no, these weren't all on the road, either). They've had their "on" games where we simply would not win, but they've had their fair share of games where CU could easily hang around and have a shot to win in the final minutes. The Miami team that got slaughtered by Wake Forest or lost to Georgia Tech at home, or beat BC and Clemson by a combined 3 points *could* be defeated by CU if we came to play and had Ski playing well, etc. And their offense isn't always as potent as advertised. They average 69.4 ppg, and have had their share in the 40's and 50's like CU has. The 87 they put up today was the exception to the rule, against a Carolina team that doesn't play defense.
Anyway, Illinois first. Enjoying the ride
cubuffs85
Active Member
No doubt about Illinois first, I don't mind talking future scenarios so much, I don't feel like I'm going to have any impact on the game. I'm obviously most familiar with the Maryland game, that did NOT seem as close as the box score indicated.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
I'm familiar with the Virginia game (among a few others), and Virginia was tied and threw away a chance at victory. Miami snuck away that night. That was a Miami performance CU could have won, especially on a neutral court (this was in Miami).
They were whining about this big-time on the radio and I think they have a valid point. Miami won both the regular season and conference tournament of the 4th-ranked conference and comparing them to Gonzaga they simply don't play in nearly as tough a conference as Miami does. The ACC may be down but we all know the WCC isn't anything close to the ACC, and the highest seeded team that Gonzaga beat this year is KSU, a 4-seed. And you can make a good case for Duke being a 1-seed and probably the only reason they didn't get one is because they lost to Maryland in the quarters of the ACC tournament.
As for UNC I have to admit that they got seeded a spot or 2 too low, not to mention having to play in the KU invitational in Kansas City if they were to get by Nova.
As for UNC I have to admit that they got seeded a spot or 2 too low, not to mention having to play in the KU invitational in Kansas City if they were to get by Nova.
cubuffs85
Active Member
Gonzaga to me is like Boise in football. I just don't know how high to rank them. What they've done is very impressive, but the question always remains -- where would they finish in the Pac-12 or the SEC? Obviously, the Big Ten or ACC would be even harder in a typical year.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
So annoyed with this going out of their way to align UNC/Kansas. Might just ignore the game and do my small part and shooting down their ratings. **** Roy Williams. He's a pussy bitch and no one cares about how Roy Williams ****ing feels about playing Kansas.
And don't try to tell us that the committee doesn't realize what they're doing when they potentially match up KU and UNC. This is 3rd time they could meet in the tournament in the past 6 years. Granted the other 2 times they met were pretty deep into the tournament but the committee still knew the possibility was there and was a good one. And as you have noted they are playing the PC game by throwing a few bones to the mid-majors when they should be giving more deserving BCS teams those bids.
Mick Ronson
Well-Known Member
i really hate it when the "Committee" tries to play sports poetry drama for ratings. KU, UNC Roy is just that.
i still miss the days when the #1 seed was playing their ass off to win in a freezing ass half empty gym in Ogden to beat some #8 team that was ready to play....when the regionals were meant to neutralize home court advantages and create a even playing field (except UNC, Kansas, and Duke...)...instead of stacking the deck with the pods.....for ratings...and then market the hell of "Cinderella"...that was win-win advertising. smart, but cynical.
i like sports. all the things that happens between the whistles. i don't give a crap about the psychology and framing the current sports worlds tries to tell me about. about this mean that, and that means this. his mom was poor, he had this or that tragedy. that's all great, but i like sports for the play. we all have a life full of psychology. to me, i want to see sports.
sports "are", the meaning comes after....not before.
to me, i like sport to be less a subset of marketing psychologythan the opposite. the NCAA tournament used to be my fave event in sports...along with the CU football, hoops, British Open and US Open golfs..not even close. now, i don't know.
i still miss the days when the #1 seed was playing their ass off to win in a freezing ass half empty gym in Ogden to beat some #8 team that was ready to play....when the regionals were meant to neutralize home court advantages and create a even playing field (except UNC, Kansas, and Duke...)...instead of stacking the deck with the pods.....for ratings...and then market the hell of "Cinderella"...that was win-win advertising. smart, but cynical.
i like sports. all the things that happens between the whistles. i don't give a crap about the psychology and framing the current sports worlds tries to tell me about. about this mean that, and that means this. his mom was poor, he had this or that tragedy. that's all great, but i like sports for the play. we all have a life full of psychology. to me, i want to see sports.
sports "are", the meaning comes after....not before.
to me, i like sport to be less a subset of marketing psychologythan the opposite. the NCAA tournament used to be my fave event in sports...along with the CU football, hoops, British Open and US Open golfs..not even close. now, i don't know.
Last edited: