Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
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!

2013-2014 Bracketology

HawaiiBUFF

HawaiiBUFF

Well-Known Member
The 2013-2014 Bracketology, was released on ESPN today. They have us as a #7 seed in Buffalo. I was going to complain that we should be higher. But a few years ago, there is no way we would've made the preseason Bracketology, let alone a 7 seed. Plus on top of that, no one would've ever thought we had the chance to make it to the post season 4 times in a row, especially when 3 of those trips are to the Big Dance.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/bracketology
 
Arizona = 1
UCLA = 6
Colorado = 7
Stanford = 7
Oregon = 10

No Cal, interesting.
 
I posted the following on Rivals before I saw we had the thread here:

Let's not pretend that Lunardi know anything about player, coach and team evaluations. He's a stat geek that developed an S-Curve he plugs data into in order to predict NCAA tournament selection (which he's pretty good at) and NCAA tournament seeding (which he's not all that good at).

Actually, if I had made selection prognostications based strictly on RPI, I think I'd only have been off by 1 or 2 at-large picks. This isn't rocket science and guys like Lunardi are given way too much respect.

In short, I couldn't care less what Lunardi has to say in April of 2013 about what teams will be seeded where in the 2014 Dance. And I only care about it the weeks leading up to Selection Sunday because he publishes some nice graphics to frame the conversation about what we already know.
 
I also think there is no way that Oregon makes it back to the dance. They are losing 4 key contributors, not to mention all 4 are seniors. They bring in 7 recruits, two of whom are also playing football. I don't see anyway they make it back. Correct me if I am wrong.
 
HawaiiBUFF said:
I also think there is no way that Oregon makes it back to the dance. They are losing 4 key contributors, not to mention all 4 are seniors. They bring in 7 recruits, two of whom are also playing football. I don't see anyway they make it back. Correct me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Didn't Colorado make it after something like this happened?
 
tante said:
Didn't Colorado make it after something like this happened?
Click to expand...
Unless Altman can sneak get another impact transfer like kazemi, no way they return to the to tourney. The ducks have been very lucky getting guys such as devoe Joseph and kazemi as one year rentals. Losing their entire front court and leadership will definitely hurt them . They will probably drop the most next year
 
Two thoughts----Bracketology for next year now is silly. Joe Lunardi doesn't have as much credibility, in addition, as Jerry Palm does. Why? Go back to two years ago. Palm didn't have us anywhere near the bracket, and he made an intelligent argument as to why we wound up in the NIT with Mike Evans the day after selection Sunday. Onto the bracket itself---We're too low, unless Lunardi is expecting Dre to leave. 4-6 if Dre comes back IMO. Other than that---I don't buy Kentucky as the number one seed. The "experts" blew smoke up people's butts about how good this past year's team would be, and they lost to Bob Morris in the first round of the NIT. DU is in the bracket? Isn't there some question as to what league they'll play in next year? Last I heard, the MVC was looking at them as a potential replacement for Creighton. Arizona is too high, and I agree with you guys on Oregon. I've got some questions on Stanford going into next year as well---probably not a team who should be there either.
 
ahoelsken,

I didn't realize that DU was in consideration for the MVC. I read somewhere they were adding Loyola-Chicago.

Anyone know?
 
jgisland said:
But they return Justin Cobbs, Tyrone Wallace and Richard Solomon and bring in Jabari Bird and a couple of 3* guys, one of which is Jordan Mathews who CU offered. They should be solid.
Click to expand...

I see them above Oregon and Stanford.
 
Buffnik said:
ahoelsken,

I didn't realize that DU was in consideration for the MVC. I read somewhere they were adding Loyola-Chicago.

Anyone know?
Click to expand...

DU was originally in talks for the MVC, but decided not to go (as of a month ago) because they didn't want to shift their other sports. When I was at the DU NIT game, I ended up sitting by a big DU guy who was telling me about the conference re-alignment fiasco.
 
Buffnik said:
ahoelsken,

I didn't realize that DU was in consideration for the MVC. I read somewhere they were adding Loyola-Chicago.

Anyone know?
Click to expand...

Everything I've heard is that Denver is currently committed to the Summit League. But I think that's a terrible fit for them. The Valley makes some sense. I'm still holding out hope that BYU goes back to the MWC and leaves Denver to join the WCC. (as some of you may remember, I've mentioned before my dad played at DU so he is usually at least somewhat in the loop of the goings on over there.)
 
On paper Stanford could be a top-15 team next year. Lots of talent, they return everyone, and have a quality recruiting class coming in. They only question is whether or not they will continue to underachieve.
 
J-R-K said:
On paper Stanford could be a top-15 team next year. Lots of talent, they return everyone, and have a quality recruiting class coming in. They only question is whether or not they will continue to underachieve.
Click to expand...

Stanford should have won the Pac12 the last 2 years IMHO. I don't see reason to think they'll reach their ceiling against a better and deeper conference next year.
 
Stanford is going to be the team that causes me the most anguish when working on my season previews next year.
 
Goose said:
Stanford is going to be the team that causes me the most anguish when working on my season previews next year.
Click to expand...

It's gonna be tough.

What do we do with OSU?

Does Utah keep improving?

How much do UCLA and UO fall back? Cal?

Does Romar right the ship?

How far away is USC if they get coaching and buy-in?

Is ASU improving or a ticking time bomb to implode?

I'm confident that UA & CU will be really good. I'm confident that Wazzu will be horrible. The rest is muddled.
 
Buffnik said:
It's gonna be tough.

What do we do with OSU?

Does Utah keep improving?

How much do UCLA and UO fall back? Cal?

Does Romar right the ship?

How far away is USC if they get coaching and buy-in?

Is ASU improving or a ticking time bomb to implode?

I'm confident that UA & CU will be really good. I'm confident that Wazzu will be horrible. The rest is muddled.
Click to expand...
I think Utah could take a step back next year. They lose Washburn and that guard who was pretty good and I think one other starter. Loveridge is back, their class doesn't look good, and the guys replacing those starters aren't world-beaters.
 
Buffnik said:
Does Utah keep improving?
Click to expand...

While they did show improvement Utah was still not very good last year, they lose two of three best players in Dubois and Washburn, and at least on paper have no quality recruits coming in. I would expect them to be terrible next year and for the foreseeable future (at least).
 
Buffnik said:
Stanford should have won the Pac12 the last 2 years IMHO. I don't see reason to think they'll reach their ceiling against a better and deeper conference next year.
Click to expand...

That's a big statement. I agree that Stanford's underachieved, but I don't think they near the talent level of Arizona or UCLA last year.
 
In a vacuum, I'm OK with CU as a 7. That's still a fringe top-25 team going into the season. Where I take issue is in comparison to UCLA and Stanford. There's no way UCLA should be a higher seed, and I think the Buffs should be at least 2-3 seeds higher than Stanford. As has been said though, April bracketology means nothing.

As for Kentucky, it's hard to bet against them as #1. They're losing some talent, but they're bringing in one of the best recruiting classes of all time. Marcus Lee, who would've been the most highly regarded recruit ever signed to CU had we been able to get in on him, is, what, the 5th or 6th best player in that class? As long as Cal can get them to play together, they'll be tough to beat.
 
ahoelsken said:
Two thoughts----Bracketology for next year now is silly. Joe Lunardi doesn't have as much credibility, in addition, as Jerry Palm does. Why? Go back to two years ago. Palm didn't have us anywhere near the bracket, and he made an intelligent argument as to why we wound up in the NIT with Mike Evans the day after selection Sunday. Onto the bracket itself---We're too low, unless Lunardi is expecting Dre to leave. 4-6 if Dre comes back IMO. Other than that---I don't buy Kentucky as the number one seed. The "experts" blew smoke up people's butts about how good this past year's team would be, and they lost to Bob Morris in the first round of the NIT. DU is in the bracket? Isn't there some question as to what league they'll play in next year? Last I heard, the MVC was looking at them as a potential replacement for Creighton. Arizona is too high, and I agree with you guys on Oregon. I've got some questions on Stanford going into next year as well---probably not a team who should be there either.
Click to expand...
You do realize that if that game took place on a neutral court in the first round of the NCAAs, UK probably kills them? Simply put, huge game for RM, not so big for Kentucky.
 
mattrob said:
That's a big statement. I agree that Stanford's underachieved, but I don't think they near the talent level of Arizona or UCLA last year.
Click to expand...

I don't think any team could match Furd's "Big 3" of Huestis-Powell-Randle. They also legitimately went 10 deep. The only other Pac-12 team that could claim that is Zona. Frontline talent, quality depth, frontcourt/backcourt balance, etc. They had everything you could want in a team. But for some reason they were mediocre. Dawkins should be ashamed of the job he's done coaching this squad.
 
Buffnik said:
I don't think any team could match Furd's "Big 3" of Huestis-Powell-Randle. They also legitimately went 10 deep. The only other Pac-12 team that could claim that is Zona. Frontline talent, quality depth, frontcourt/backcourt balance, etc. They had everything you could want in a team. But for some reason they were mediocre. Dawkins should be ashamed of the job he's done coaching this squad.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm definitely not as high on their talent as you are. I like Huestis and Powell, but, other than the last six weeks of last season, Randle has been a disappointment. I think you could find trios from OSU, UCLA, or ASU to rival those three. They're deep, and big, but their bigs aren't necessarily post threats, with a guy like Gage living at the three point line. They're also not the most athletic team and don't get to the line a lot. And for a team that isn't overly athletic, they aren't a great shooting team. I just don't think all the pieces come together to form a clear identity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top