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!

2021 Pac 12 Tournament Thread

Buffsbball said:
At this point, we've beat USC twice, I'd assume they may have our number the third time. Even though we own Enfield. I'd rather have Oregon on the other side of the bracket with USC and maybe pick UCLA to play on our side. Which is honestly surprising to say.
Click to expand...
When teams play 3rd time, team that won first 2 wins 75% of the time.
 
I'm enjoying this debate, and lament the fact that we'll never really know

do you feel more pressure to beat a team you've already bested twice, or more pressure to beat a team that has already beat you twice?

I got dumped once, was devastated, and the girl showed up a few weeks later with a new dude at this beer mile race I was running – the combination of running and drinking spurred by heartbreak that had dominated my life since we broke up helped me pull out the W

emotions, man...you just never know
 
Zachsquatch said:
I'm enjoying this debate, and lament the fact that we'll never really know

do you feel more pressure to beat a team you've already bested twice, or more pressure to beat a team that has already beat you twice?

I got dumped once, was devastated, and the girl showed up a few weeks later with a new dude at this beer mile race I was running – the combination of running and drinking spurred by heartbreak that had dominated my life since we broke up helped me pull out the W

emotions, man...you just never know
Click to expand...
Did she dump the slow poke and come back to her speedy athletic ex?
 
Buffnik said:
I don't think it's any more difficult, though. I'd certainly rather play a team I'd beaten twice instead of a team I'd lost to twice. Probably means my team matches up well and probably also has the psychological advantage.
Click to expand...

Huge psychological advantage. The only disadvantage stems from the concern that players will think that they have an advantage, and fail to be fully prepared for a tough opponent.

Which is why it you hear coaches and media roll out this trope. The very notion that it is difficult to beat a team for the third time actually helps to mitigate the factuality of that assertion.

jurassic park mind blown GIF by Spotify
 
Am I correct in saying that this is the first time Tad has gotten a top four seed in the P12 tournament?
 
clutch299 said:
How much do you think the committee will use these NET rankings? I think they have some value but then I see Colgate at #9 and I think again.
Click to expand...
I think they start with NET ranking and in the case of Pac-12 teams, add 2-3 seed penalty to the implied NET seeding. So if a #14 implies a 4 seed, then the Pac-12 penalty makes it a 6 or 7.
 
clutch299 said:
How much do you think the committee will use these NET rankings? I think they have some value but then I see Colgate at #9 and I think again.
Click to expand...
It’s used for all the tiering of teams, i.e. quad 1 wins and quad 2 wins, etc. It isn’t really used as an overall ranking baseline. The committee today uses things like KenPom and other advanced ranking metrics more than ever before.
 
torerobuff said:
It’s used for all the tiering of teams, i.e. quad 1 wins and quad 2 wins, etc. It isn’t really used as an overall ranking baseline. The committee today uses things like KenPom and other advanced ranking metrics more than ever before.
Click to expand...
I think that's probably true in actuality, but I thought the NET rankings were developed precisely for the committee to rank/seed teams against each other.
 
cmgoods said:
The 1 and 2 seeds are the only ones that haven't been determined yet and will be after tomorrow's UO/OSU game.


View attachment 43489
View attachment 43490
Click to expand...
Do the lower seeds not shuffle after the first round? Meaning, will the #1 seed play the #8 or 9 seed even if a lower seed makes it to round 2?

Edit: answering my own question, the seeds indeed do not shuffle. I must say I like playing Cal or Stanford in round 2.
 
Buffnik said:
OSU and Furd are already locked as the 5/6?
Click to expand...

I believe so, but somebody better check my math.

Tie-Breakers: Tie-breaking procedures for determining all tournament seeding will be:
1. Two-team tie
a. Results of head-to-head competition during the regular season.
b. Each team’s record (won-lost percentage) vs. the team occupying the highest position in the final regular standings, and then continuing down through the standings until one team gains an advantage.
When arriving at another group of tied teams while comparing records, use each team’s record (won-lost percentage) against the collective tied teams as a group (prior to that group’s own tie-breaking procedure), rather than the performance against individual tied teams.
c. Won-lost percentage against all Division I opponents.
d. Coin toss conducted by the Commissioner or designee.
Click to expand...

Stanford got swept by OU and USC, OSU split with USC, and will at least split with OU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top