ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
No more crimson kool-aid----They beat UNM last year in the Dance, but Steve Alford teams have a history of losing to people they shouldn't in the tournament.......
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
No more crimson kool-aid----They beat UNM last year in the Dance, but Steve Alford teams have a history of losing to people they shouldn't in the tournament.......
jgisland
Club Member
It was actually 75% and 80% so actually 60%. And I'm not calling it a lock, I just don't see how anyone can call either a loss at this juncture. I'm pretty over this debate though, none of us are going to change each others opinions on the matter. You're a pessimistic asshole and I'm a sunshine pumping asshole.
I am interested to see what the odds are when Live-RPI and RealTimeRPI release the odds for each game and all that jazz though.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
we're 34.2% in winning true road games under Tad. 37.1% if you want to claim Arizona. Chances are we're not suddenly going to become road warriors and go 10-1 on the road. Should we be improved on the road? Yes. Are we still going to have at least a few "meh" losses on the road? Yes.
the argument is that you can't see how anyone could possibly see CU not winning both games and berating them for thinking so. Do you want me to quote that?
and ya, you probably won't get such high % from those two sources.
BuffTE41
Member
I don't think it's berating so much as bewilderment. It would be like if CU was ranked #20 in football and people were predicting a 1-3 start.
Umm no.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
This isn't a hard concept. This is a tough schedule. We will lose some games. We are ranked 22nd in ESPN's poll, however KU, Baylor and Okie Lite are all ranked variously more favorably than CU. This was before Wiggins. Personally, I'd guess 1-2 from those 3.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...25-2013-14-season-ncaa-men-college-basketball
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-bas...25-2013-14-season-ncaa-men-college-basketball
Last edited:
BuffTE41
Member
Totally agree, 1-2 losses out of those 3 is exactly what I think is going to happen as well. However, I have a hard time believing that we are going to lose to Harvard at home, CSU and Air Force.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
Again, Tad Boyle finally has a deep, loaded roster for the first time at CU. Everyone has meh losses on the road, but csu or afa would be what the hell happened losses. This CU roster has no business losing to AFA, CSU, or WYO. Pointing out the previous WYO losses has no meaning. Completely different CU playing a completely different WYO team this year, and its in Boulder, so the officiiating wont be laughably in favor of them.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Wyoming on the road is completely applicable, let alone in a thread where people are bringing up comparisons to football left and right. It's yet another example of CU's struggles on the road against the MWC programs of the Front Range. It's not going to magically change because we're a fringe top 25 team this year with a handful of young pieces who will be experiencing their first true road games at AFA and CSU.. CSU on the road is always going to be a tough environment for CU to walk away with a W as long as Eustachy is there. They're not going to make the NCAA tournament this year, it's not as though they're suddenly going to be a sub-250 opponent.
CU has more depth, that's great. That doesn't mean we'll magically have a clear identity on offense and not devolve into running the "cluster...." so commonly seen last season - especially on the road - when things got hostile. Depth brings its own new challenges that can hinder you from your potential early in a season: Cohesion. Lineups.
We probably beat Air Force. Colorado State is borderline toss-up.
Last edited:
jgisland
Club Member
Even given 'Tini's optimistic outlook. The probability of CU going 3-0 against AFA, CSU and WYO is 54%. The odds say dropping one of those 3 is nearly as likely as not.
You're also no longer able to comment or point out any CU wins as reference if CU losses aren't to be counted. If the WYO loss on the road means nothing, neither does the Arizona win at home. Completely different teams.
Last edited:
BuffTE41
Member
Look at the names that Dustin and Jaron appear with in this video. They made this game because they are high major recruits, we aren't bringing in schmucks to play at CU. Sometimes I think CU fans want to fail out of some strange affinity for self loathing. Thankfully, 8-5 is not going to happen. We are going 11-2 or 10-3 in the non-con and are winning around 25 games before the tournament. I won't rub it in with an "I told you so" attitude when it happens, I just hope you all develop a stronger confidence in our program and coach Boyle.
[video=youtube;oxtbereHpu0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxtbereHpu0[/video]
[video=youtube;oxtbereHpu0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxtbereHpu0[/video]
Last edited:
jgisland
Club Member
You do realize that last yr's incoming class was higher rated than this yr's right?
I certainly doesnt seem like people realize that in this thread does it.
On paper these kids are about as likely to contribute as Gordon was coming in.
BuffTE41
Member
The 2012 class contributed prolifically to the tournament team in 2012-2013. Somehow that means that the best guard out of Arizona and a top-10 forward out of Texas are not going to contribute to the 2013-2014 team.
Nothing you say will convince me that this is not a Sweet-16 team, because it demonstrably is. Everyone in the country acknowledges it, but somehow CU fans don't. Interesting.
Nothing you say will convince me that this is not a Sweet-16 team, because it demonstrably is. Everyone in the country acknowledges it, but somehow CU fans don't. Interesting.
rolandftw
Club Member
Some people think they have Sweet 16 potential, very few are saying they are a lock for the sweet 16. Reality is pretty much nobody is. Even the KU's, Duke's, Kentucky's have come in with very talked about rosters, and have been upset early in the tournament.
oh really? who?
You just ventured into delusional, the 2 players who contributed last year were alternately ranked in the top-40 to 60 in the country, both as good or better than Dom Collier is currently.
Jaron Hopkins was highly ranked as a PG a position he didnt play as a senior and likely wont play here, while Thomas was the number 8 guy out of texas on the staff's board, comparing him to Scott is stupid.
BuffTE41
Member
Please provide for me any substantial evidence that this will not be a highly seeded tournament team, I would love to see it. Are the ESPN analysts wrong? Is CBS wrong? Is SB nation wrong? Why should I believe your opinion over them, what are your qualifications? The only thing that is delusional here is your unyielding pessimism.
Here you go 41, Tini same offer to you: if we go 10-3 or better in the OOC and win 25 before the conf tourney I'll make 1k donation in your name to Boyle's program, HOWEVER if we go 9-4 win 22 or less and dont make the sweet-16 you do the same for me.
Sweet16 is your trump, even if we go 9-4 and only win 22 but make the sweet-16 the bet isnt payable.
Sweet16 is your trump, even if we go 9-4 and only win 22 but make the sweet-16 the bet isnt payable.
I am not saying we wont be a highly ranked tourney team, we can go 9-4 follow that with a 3rd place in the pac reg season win a couple in the tourney and get a 5-7 seed which would be great. What I am saying is you ****ers dont get math, seem not to realize this years class wasnt better than last years, that we put our best player in to the league, and that in college basketball NO ONE goes undefeated, even the schools with the talent to go undefeated lose 4-6 games every year.
BuffTE41
Member
We aren't saying that we're going to go undefeated, I said 10-3 or 11-2. William Whelan who analyzes this team for Rivals predicted 11-2, and he has a massively expansive knowledge of college basketball. I would say he knows more about it than anyone on this board.
On the player ratings. I keep bringing up this example because it is so cogently clear. Wichita State was a phenomenal team last year that went to the Final Four because they were long and athletic. I've researched their recruiting over the last four years and they had all 3 and 2* players who were developed by their great coaching staff, similarly to Boyle. Who cares about the rankings if you know the players you have coming in are good?
On your bet. I am a recent graduate and can't afford 1k, but I would gladly buy you a beer.
Last edited:
apparently being in the top 20 or 25 means CU is a consensus sweet 16 team. This math problem is really ****ing hard.
Tell you what if i lose 'll buy you a buffclub membership if you dont have one. You lose I'll take the beer.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
I posted a while back about how many top 150 kids didn't contribute from last year's class. I believe the number was in the 20s and half those were academic or injury casualties. These kids are all going to see minutes aside from maybe one. The previous class was rated higher because of 2 guys being ranked in the 60s.
Wes Gordon was a fringe 100-150 guy depending on your choice of service.