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!

2014 NCAAMB Rankings

Shldr2Shldr

Shldr2Shldr

Club Member
Club Member
Preseason Coaches Poll (1st place votes) (Bolded Opponents)

1 Kentucky (24)
2 UofA (3)
3 Duke (2)
4 Wiscy (3)
5 Kansas
6 UNC
7 Florida
8 UVa
9 Louisville
10 UT
11 Wichita State
12 Villanova
13 Gonzaga
14 ISU
15 UConn
16 VCU
17 SDSU
18 Mich St.
19 Oklahoma
20 OSU
21 Nebraska
22 SMU
23 Mich
24 Syracuse
25 Iowa

Receiving votes: Harvard 47, Stanford 47, KSU 37, Pitt 36, Utah 26, Memphis 25, Minnesota 18, UCLA 15, UNM 11, Oregon 9, Louisiana Tech 8, COLORADO 8, Ark 8, Dayton 6, Providence 5, ND 5, UMass 4, Georgetown 4, Illinois 4, Texas El-Paso 4, FSU 3, Baylor 2, George Washington 1, Miami 1, Toledo 1, Saint Mary's 1.

I don't like these rankings. At all.
 
Last edited:
Coaches should not vote......Oregon getting any votes....really? And more than Colorado? Come on

Shldr2Shldr said:
Preseason

1 Kentucky
2 UofA
3 Duke
4 Wiscy
5 Kansas
6 UNC
7 Florida
8 UVa
9 Louisville
10 UT
11 Wichita State
12 Villanova
13 Gonzaga
14 ISU
15 UConn
16 VCU
17 SDSU
18 Mich St.
19 Oklahoma
20 OSU
21 Nebraska
22 SMU
23 Mich
24 Syracuse
25 Iowa

Receiving votes (in order) Harvard, Stanford, KSU, Pitt, Utah, Memphis, Minnesota, UCLA, UNM, Oregon, Louisiana Tech, COLORADO, Ark, Dayton, Providence, ND, UMass, Georgetown, Illinois, Texas El-Paso, FSU, Baylor, George Washington, Miami, Toledo, Saint Mary's.

I don't like these rankings. At all.
Click to expand...
 
I wonder if the last game CU played is factoring into their choices, here.
 
A team I think is ridiculously low is SDSU.

That's a Top 10 team, not a #17.

Edit: I'd flip them with Florida, which lost 4 starters from last year's team and should not be at #7.
 
Should be higher than mid-tier receiving votes. Oregon receiving more votes says it all, really. It's fun to be ranked, so ****ing win and make it happen.
 
jgisland said:
Or maybe all of the games after SD went down where they went 9-10 with the same roster returning.
Click to expand...

That's also a possibility, although it seems a little hypocritical to me. Most of the time, when you return five starters and the first three guys off the bench, that is a good thing, regardless of the record of those players. Plus, there was a noticable slump after SD went down that took a solid three weeks to get over. They had to learn how to play without Spencer. That took some time. I would actually postulate that his injury will help this years' team, as it gave a lot of those guys some solid game minutes. But whatever. In the end, I still think we're very underrated at this point. I'd put us somewhere in the 16-20 range. But that's just me.
 
Not a coach's job to follow every team in the country. They should only poll their conferences.
 
sackman said:
That's also a possibility, although it seems a little hypocritical to me. Most of the time, when you return five starters and the first three guys off the bench, that is a good thing, regardless of the record of those players. Plus, there was a noticable slump after SD went down that took a solid three weeks to get over. They had to learn how to play without Spencer. That took some time. I would actually postulate that his injury will help this years' team, as it gave a lot of those guys some solid game minutes. But whatever. In the end, I still think we're very underrated at this point. I'd put us somewhere in the 16-20 range. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

I do agree in theory - [MENTION=6462]pachoops[/MENTION] and I have had this conversation over and over. Dan Hanner in an article about Arizona had an interesting comment on this. "Second, chemistry matters for an offense. Returning minutes are a little overrated, but teams with a lot of returning minutes do tend to improve on offense on average."

It'll be interesting how they do progress this year, the learning to play w/out SD will most likely help this year, but this is still a team that was under .500 w/out him. Incremental improvement may only get them to a 65/70%ish of wins, which isn't bad by any means, but will likely disappoint a lot around here.
 
the Oregon thing is baffling - coaches either have a lot of faith in Joseph Young, Dana Altman or have no clue.
 
jgisland said:
I do agree in theory - @pachoops and I have had this conversation over and over. Dan Hanner in an article about Arizona had an interesting comment on this. "Second, chemistry matters for an offense. Returning minutes are a little overrated, but teams with a lot of returning minutes do tend to improve on offense on average."

It'll be interesting how they do progress this year, the learning to play w/out SD will most likely help this year, but this is still a team that was under .500 w/out him. Incremental improvement may only get them to a 65/70%ish of wins, which isn't bad by any means, but will likely disappoint a lot around here.
Click to expand...

Just to play devil's advocate here, but if you take out the adjustment period (and there WAS an adjustment period) the team was well over .500 w/o the Mayor despite having to face a lot of tough games in tournament situations.
 
jgisland said:
the Oregon thing is baffling - coaches either have a lot of faith in Joseph Young, Dana Altman or have no clue.
Click to expand...

Coaches remember what teams advanced in the Dance, which coaches always win 25+ games, and who they voted for a lot last year.

I don't think for a second that any coach in the east who doesn't have Oregon on his schedule has any clue what the roster turnover was from last year.
 
Darth Snow said:
Just to play devil's advocate here, but if you take out the adjustment period (and there WAS an adjustment period) the team was well over .500 w/o the Mayor despite having to face a lot of tough games in tournament situations.
Click to expand...

Fair - you can basically say they didn't have any bad losses or any good wins w/out SD though. Take out the first 3 games as adjustment and the P12 & NCAA tourney and they still go 6-6.
 
jgisland said:
Fair - you can basically say they didn't have any bad losses or any good wins w/out SD though. Take out the first 3 games as adjustment and the P12 & NCAA tourney and they still go 6-6.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to suggest taking out the tourney situations. I was just saying that the team didn't discover its post Mayor identity and that the adjustment period shouldn't be held against it.

And yea, I agree, this team does have a low ceiling unless somebody blows up or everyone takes a solid step forward. It also, however, should have a pretty high floor.
 
Darth Snow said:
I didn't mean to suggest taking out the tourney situations. I was just saying that the team didn't discover its post Mayor identity and that the adjustment period shouldn't be held against it.

And yea, I agree, this team does have a low ceiling unless somebody blows up or everyone takes a solid step forward. It also, however, should have a pretty high floor.
Click to expand...

this is exactly where I am - the breakout candidates are there though.
 
jgisland said:
Fair - you can basically say they didn't have any bad losses or any good wins w/out SD though. Take out the first 3 games as adjustment and the P12 & NCAA tourney and they still go 6-6.
Click to expand...

The W at Stanford wasn't a good win in your mind? Also, a W over Utah. They're both being rated as top 4 teams this year. Went 9-3 against P12 teams not named UA/UCLA.

This was the youngest team in the tournament outside of KU. I don't see how what they did w/o SD can be taken as anything but a positive overall.
 
Last edited:
BuffG said:
The W at Stanford wasn't a good win in your mind? Also, a W over Utah. They're both being rated as top 4 teams this year. Went 9-3 against P12 teams not named UA/UCLA.

This was the youngest team in the tournament outside of KU. I don't see how what they did w/o SD can be taken as anything but a positive overall.
Click to expand...


Stanford win was a good one, road conf wins are always good but outside of getting hot and winning a couple of games in the tournament they weren't a great team last year and the Utah game at home when you're favored was a game everybody thought they should win, so why it was a nice I don't call that a great win.

i'm not disparanging anything they did w/out SD as not being good, clearly my expectations of this years team don't match up with what a lot of others feel and that's fine - I hope I am wrong.
 
Basically, the Buffs are ranked at #37 heading into this season.

Considering that we've got a year in this program where someone could see a lot of spread between this squad's floor and ceiling, I'm kind of looking at it as a general barometer of how the program is seen nationally. Top 40 program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top