It is arguably not the most talented team in CU history, but since history with you probably starts around 2005 I'll let that slide.
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 Non-Conference Schedule Predictions
- Thread starter HawaiiBUFF
- Start date
It is arguably not the most talented team in CU history, but since history with you probably starts around 2005 I'll let that slide.
Why does two years ago matter? How many players from that team are still on the roster that play? Spenc, Ski, and Adams?
Can someone also tell me where all this scoring from CSU is going to come from?
| Name | GP | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | SPG | BPG | TPG |
| Colton Iverson | 35 | 29.5 | 14.2 | 9.8 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 2.0 |
| Dorian Green | 34 | 32.8 | 13.0 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 1.8 |
| Wes Eikmeier | 35 | 31.0 | 12.6 | 1.7 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 1.7 |
| Greg Smith | 35 | 25.1 | 11.2 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 1.8 |
| Pierce Hornung | 33 | 31.1 | 58.4 | 8.9 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 1.3 |
| Daniel Bejarano | 35 | 22.1 | 6.3 | 5.5 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 0.9 |
| Jon Octeus | 35 | 19.6 | 4.7 | 2.6 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 1.1 |
| Gerson Santo | 32 | 7.2 | 2.1 | 1.3 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.3 |
| Jordan Mason | 12 | 4.9 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Joe De Ciman | 23 | 5.1 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.4 |
| Josh Morgan | 8 | 2.3 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 |
| Trevor Williams | 1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Stephon Wynn | 3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
| Totals | 321 | 212 | 126.1 | 28.9 | 13.1 | 5.1 | 2.4 | 11.9 |
| Lost from '12-'13 | 53.58% | 70.52% | 86.76% | 97.23% | 78.63% | 68.63% | 75.00% | 72.27% |
Same with Air Force...
| Name | GP | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | SPG | BPG | TPG |
| Michael Lyons | 30.0 | 31.6 | 17.7 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 1.9 |
| Mike Fitzgerald | 32.0 | 29.3 | 9.9 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 1.4 |
| Todd Fletcher | 32.0 | 32.0 | 9.5 | 2.9 | 3.7 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 1.2 |
| Taylor Broekhuis | 32.0 | 25.2 | 8.3 | 3.9 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 1.5 |
| Kyle Green | 32.0 | 17.0 | 5.4 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 1.2 |
| Cameron Michael | 21.0 | 9.9 | 4.1 | 1.4 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.3 |
| DeLovell Earls | 32.0 | 14.2 | 3.9 | 3.1 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 1.3 |
| Marek Olesinski | 31.0 | 10.9 | 3.5 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.6 |
| Kamryn Williams | 30.0 | 11.5 | 3.3 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.7 |
| Justin Hammonds | 22.0 | 8.3 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0.5 |
| Max Yon | 26.0 | 8.9 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.6 |
| Tre' Coggins | 31.0 | 10.1 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.9 |
| Ethan Michael | 8.0 | 4.3 | 1.4 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.5 |
| Zach Moer | 6.0 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
| Chase Kammerer | 14.0 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 |
| Totals | 379 | 218.5 | 76.5 | 30.6 | 17.8 | 7.2 | 1.9 | 12.7 |
| Lost from '12-'13 | 41.69% | 61.83% | 66.41% | 53.27% | 59.55% | 56.94% | 57.89% | 56.69% |
Neither of those rosters suggest we should be predicting a loss, whether it is home or away. Both teams are replacing a lot and we get them early in the season...
Bolded names and stats denote the player is no longer with the team
Last edited:
So...
2-10 (16.7%) in 2010-2011
3-7 (30.0%) in 2011-2012
5-7 (41.7%) in 2012-2013
Huh...16.7%<30.0%<41.7%
So I read the bracket wrong, BFD the point remains in that a few of our road losses were to some damn good teams
BuffTE41
Member
So what you're saying is that our depth, athleticism and talent have not increased from the beginning of Boyle's tenure? What is the value in going back and looking at games from 2011 when the only players who remain from that team that I am aware of are Booker and Dinwiddie? Who were both freshman I might add.
Our 2013 roster is better across the board from 2011 and it's not even close. Have CSU and AFA improved their roster in a similar manner as CU in terms of adding length, depth athleticism and talent? Hardly, I would say both teams are worse off in that category than in 2011.
If our starting 5 can't play with the best of them then why are we going to be a top-20 team? Every analysis I've read says that this team has massive potential, and that is from people who write about basketball professionally. Who cares what their stars coming out of high school were, Wichita State went to the Final Four with 2 and 3*'s.
Last edited:
The coach is still the same and it illustrates the difference in home road splits in college ball we were quantifiable better on the road last year for Boyle which is nice to see but were were roughly flat in neutral site games and worse at home. Basketball is a numbers game much more so than football because of the sheer number of inputs and how that normalizes things. The value here is exactly that we are not very good on the road, never have been, that is unlikely to change this year and we have three years of data to show that.
While I agree that we are better than we were in 2011 across the board from a player stand point, CSU has visibly upgraded thier coaching staff, is pulling in a ton of Juco's and this is thier superbowl. That last fact when we are going to be much, much younger this time around should concern you. Also both of those clubs will be better than last years Utah team, who we lost to, on the road.
First you need to acknowledge that there is a grand canyon of talent differential between the top 8 or so teams in the country and where we are at +/- 20, our starting 5 can not go toe-to-toe with Lousville, KU, Duke etc. As it relates to us though and your comments above you went from talking about the talent of players to if our team deserves to be a top-20 team. The whole package is there and we should loosely be a top-25 team, but part of that is coaching talent wise I think we are 30-35 in the country. After all we lost an NBA 1st rounder and are replacing him with a fringe 150 guy who's never played a minute of college ball.
I think people completely discount what that Europe trip did for the team last year, we were far more ready for the season last year than we'll be this year it is no knock on the staff but playing the way they did where they did last year really accelerated the "gelling" of the team. I also think top-20 right now is over-rating us a little, people (especially east-coast focused writers) don't realize just how effective Dre was, and what his contributions meant to this team. The see 11ppg and say oh that's replaceable. We are going to be young, we are going to be adjusting to losing the guy who made boxing out unimportant, lead the team in steals, blocks, and was a lock-down defender. There will be an adjustment period for this team and without the luxury of the euro trip; those growing pains will cost us a game or 2 in the OOC.
Cindy ****ing crawford had a mole, but she was still a super model.
I think a lot of you guys are underestimating this team and what it's capable of. There aren't a lot of holes on this lineup.
10-3. The losses coming from some combination of KU, Baylor, OSU, CSU, Air Force. If the CSU and Air Force games were in Boulder, I'd be much more confident about them. But they're not. I do think we'll win at least one out of the group of BU, KU, and OSU, and winning two isn't out of the question.
Last year, nobody expected us to win the Charleston Classic. We finished the Non-Con 12-2. This year's schedule is tougher, but I genuinely believe we're a better team, even without Dre.
10-3. The losses coming from some combination of KU, Baylor, OSU, CSU, Air Force. If the CSU and Air Force games were in Boulder, I'd be much more confident about them. But they're not. I do think we'll win at least one out of the group of BU, KU, and OSU, and winning two isn't out of the question.
Last year, nobody expected us to win the Charleston Classic. We finished the Non-Con 12-2. This year's schedule is tougher, but I genuinely believe we're a better team, even without Dre.
So could you actually respond with substance? You're the one picking us to go 8-5 or 9-4 in the OOC. The most I can see is three.
Also, does anyone want to answer my question about CSU and AF? What exactly scares people with those two other than it being on the road (despite the fact that we have gone on the road to beat a good AF team with a CU team that didn't have remotely close to the talent level we will this year)?
Also, here is CSU's JUCO signee, really impressive :rolling_eyes:
| STATISTICS CATEGORY | OVERALL | CONF | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Games | 26 | 1022nd | 16 | 379th |
| Games started | 9 | 1028th | 3 | 1028th |
| Minutes | 116 | 1229th | 14 | 1705th |
| Minutes per game | 4.5 | 1117th | .9 | 1672nd |
| FG | 34-74 | 1484th | 16-38 | 1217th |
| FG Pct | 45.9 | - | 42.1 | - |
| 3PT | 0-0 | 2219th | 0-0 | 1955th |
| 3PT Pct | - | - | - | - |
| FT | 24-38 | 1193rd | 13-21 | 904th |
| FT Pct | 63.2 | - | 61.9 | - |
| Off rebounds | 30 | 770th | 13 | 725th |
| Def rebounds | 42 | 1222nd | 24 | 865th |
| Total rebounds | 72 | 1105th | 37 | 842nd |
| Rebounds per game | 2.8 | 1046th | 2.3 | 1134th |
| Personal fouls | 33 | 1519th | 21 | 1677th |
| Disqualifications | 0 | 93rd | 0 | 898th |
| Assists | 3 | 2129th | 2 | 1705th |
| Turnovers | 25 | 1293rd | 16 | 819th |
| Assist to turnover ratio | 0.1 | 1800th | 0.1 | 1620th |
| Steals | 7 | 1690th | 2 | 1600th |
| Blocks | 18 | 276th | 13 | 135th |
| Points | 92 | 1495th | 45 | 1221st |
| Points per game | 3.5 | 1423rd | 2.8 | 1399th |
| Points per 40 min | 31.7 | - | 128.6 | - |
http://stats.njcaa.org/sports/mbkb/2012-13/div1/players/marcusholt622k
Last edited:
CSU is not as big a threat as they were. I understand it is their Championship game whenever they get to play us, but they lose most of their team from last year. They will not be the same.
I just agreed with the substance posted by Absinthe above. Can I incorporate it by reference?
here's my general statement/belief, restated: We are young, despite a lot of experience from a few starters. Very inexperienced guys will be playing key minutes against well coached, talented teams, often in hostile situations. Even if our guys are talented young players, there will be some hiccups, especially on the road and early.
Next, **** happens.
Finally, I'm a pessimistic asshole, so take the reasonable expectation and add a loss or two. See happens, ****.
That said, the lumps we take early will provide dividends down the road :nod:
BuffTE41
Member
So essentially, CU will remain static and not improve in all areas including coaching while other teams will. Boyle is not a better coach than in 2011, despite an improving road record and very impressive neutral court resume. This is the first year Boyle is returning a bulk of players and we are supposed to be concerned about youth, while ignoring the fact that AFA and CSU lost their best players and will also be young. CU will not get younger players to gel, but we should be scared of CSU JUCOS who will come in and gel.
Not sure what you mean about my comments on CU's ranking. I'm going to trust the analysis of CBS and ESPN that have CU between #15-22, as I think those are pretty credible sources.
Finally, I disagree with your comment about the talent gap in the top-8 teams. Teams floating around the 20's in top-25 rankings routinely make the Elite-8. Since we're talking about Baylor, look at their 2009-2010 team. They ended the year ranked 20th and nearly made the Final Four. Also, Wichita State last year.
Last edited:
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
This is easily Tad Boyles best and deepest team. If we lose more than 2 or 3, we should all be disappointed.
11ppg is replaceable, by committee...or Jenkins could bring in 11ppg and I wouldn't blink twice. We return four out of five starters, three of which will be NBA players. They ALL have at least a year of experience. Josh Scott, while small-ish last year, has put on weight from reports and he has a whole year of starting experience. Wesley Gordon is by all reports as good of a defender as Dre was. Rebounding I'm not concerned with, actually we will be better since the players won't rely on Dre. The Europe trip did help, for the freshman, of which we had two in the starting lineup for most of the year. Practices are going to be tougher than most games which accelerates young players growth. You also really only seem to point out "flaws" and "issues" of our team while ignoring issues that teams like CSU or AF have, like losing a lot of key players, where we lost just one and have recruited at a much higher level. Also, unlike last year when we had no bench, we have a bench which means starters can be out there with the freshman which will also make the transition much smoother. Other than OSU, KU, Baylor, and Harvard, I don't see the big deal with this OOC. Those are four tough games, but the rest? Very, very meh at best.
This "realistic" outlook is amusing to say the least.
Don't tell that to the "realists" (read people who call themselves realists but if you have to say that you're a pessimist) in here, four or five losses, GUARANTEED and all because we don't have the Europe trip!
This "realistic" outlook is amusing to say the least.
Don't tell that to the "realists" (read people who call themselves realists but if you have to say that you're a pessimist) in here, four or five losses, GUARANTEED and all because we don't have the Europe trip!
Last edited:
jgisland
Club Member
Ask Dre about those sources and their evaluation of talent.
Ah the good ol one example = regularity
I think CU will improve at roughly the same rate as other well coached schools barring attrition when adjust for time, some people here think we are making leaps and bounds while other teams are taking baby-steps. You are right that those Juco's at CSU may not gel, I am right that we'll be younger than them, we'll be on the road, and we arent very good on the road historically. What will win-out? is great question. It is indeed however a question guys talking like CSU and AFA are locks for us to win arent being realistic.
I love this board 2 years ago these same pundits picked us last in the pac-12 and were all idiots, now they know everything.
One and done tourneys cause exactly this phenomena where on some days the more talented team loses, that is what makes the NCAA so awesome and why it is so different than football. Normalized over 15 odd games though that effect peters out, and comes back to the fact that most of the time the top teams have a large gulf more talent than the ones floating around 20.
jgisland
Club Member
Just like Spencer Dinwiddie is a first round "lock" as you say. You're good ole one example, ESPN has Dinwiddie #38.
picked last in the pac-12 in 2011
At this point? Probably not. At the end? Yup, especially when you factor in his measurables.
jgisland
Club Member
So it's ok for you to know more than ESPN but not me, got it.
BuffTE41
Member
I love this board 2 years ago these same pundits picked us last in the pac-12 and were all idiots, now they know everything.
Pundits are prone to human error and of course get things wrong, more often than not the top-25 rankings are fairly accurate, with teams floating in and out throughout the season. CU consistently appearing in preseason rankings is not an isolated incident representing a couple of pundits with an east coast bias. Rather, it suggests that we ACTUALLY have a good team.
Pundits are prone to human error and of course get things wrong, more often than not the top-25 rankings are fairly accurate, with teams floating in and out throughout the season. CU consistently appearing in preseason rankings is not an isolated incident representing a couple of pundits with an east coast bias. Rather, it suggests that we ACTUALLY have a good team.
Last edited:
Did you miss the last page? Of course he knows more than you.
He is capable of re-ranking the NCAA's as well Cal made the sweet-16 last year and Oregon the elite-8. This should really help our conference distributions.
Clearly said that
Man am I glad you've never made a mistake reading a chart
'Tini getting destroyed, resorts to feeble mewlings.
It isn't so much the mistake as the fact you flatly ignore anything that maybe contrary to your view of the situation.