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!

Anyone catch Jerry Palm on 87.7 this morning?

dio

dio

Admin
Club Member
Junta Member
Made me want to barf.

"It was easy to leave Colorado out. They went 8-8 in conference and had the 25th worst out of conference schedule"

"I wouldn't have voted for them"

"They showed they can beat some nice teams. They also showed they can lose to some bad teams"

He said the only team we have a legitimate gripe about being behind is USC... and he said there are 7 other teams who have the same gripe.

He might be right, but tough to hear.
 
I understand the out of conference schedule part, but I don't get the 8-8 in conference. there are plenty of teams that went .500 in their conference in the tourney and some not as tough as the Big 12.
 
I dont get all the gripe over OOC SOS, what about the overall SOS? Teams that play in good conferences dont need strong OOC SOS, since they will get their SOS up with in conference play. Now if we were Gonzaga, that would be a different story.
 
I heard him too. He made some valid points, but he also acted like the Buffs had no business in the conversation. He also failed to mention that several teams who made it in had serious blemishes. "(Colorado's) resume is a classic NIT resume." He kept saying "(CU) went 8-8 in the Big 12, I mean come on" as if Missouri didn't also, or 3 teams from the Big East (went .500), or 4 from the Big 10.

I thikn the guy happened to be correct about the Buffs, but that doesn't make him right.
 
so the announcers didn't ask him the same questions that we are posting here?
 
Yeah, like I said in the "Vent" thread, the guy made me want to drive my car into a brick wall. I liked the guy that followed him. He was saying that the RPI is an atiquated relic from 1981 that was developed by the NCAA. He said the RPI predates the CD player which no one has used for 10 years, :lol: To him, the RPI is very rudementary and does not come close to telling the true story. But he mentioned that Jay Bilas was probably correct when he said the committee probably got down to the last few bubble teams and just said, "screw it" and went off the RPI, not really vetting out the final teams based on all the facts and information.
 
UAB and VCU showed they can lose to worse teams than CU did. The only difference with them is that they didn't show they can beat the top teams CU did.

The fact that they did better than .500 in conferences that are much weaker than the Big XII doesn't really mean **** to me.
 
By Jerry Palm's logic, only about 45 teams should have been selected and the rest thrown out. I wish Vic and Gary would have told him that.
 
USC lost to Bradley, TCU, and Oregon State who barely felt like a division 1 school back when Colorado played them :/
 
dionisus1122 said:
Made me want to barf.

"It was easy to leave Colorado out. They went 8-8 in conference and had the 25th worst out of conference schedule"

"I wouldn't have voted for them"

"They showed they can beat some nice teams. They also showed they can lose to some bad teams"

He said the only team we have a legitimate gripe about being behind is USC... and he said there are 7 other teams who have the same gripe.

He might be right, but tough to hear.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't he look at his own conference the Big 10? Half of those teams do not deserve to be in it.
 
Why isn't he or anyone else mentioning Clemson? I'd put USC in before Clemson, so the USC pick doesn't bother me quite as much. BC even has as good a case as Clemson yet they weren't even in most of the snub discussions.
 
he's right in his way.

it's not about who's better, it's about the stat measures.

rip me all you want, but it's been like that for years. and we got screwed playing the schedule of a coach who was scheduling to keep his job padding OOC wins.

end of story.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
Why isn't he or anyone else mentioning Clemson? I'd put USC in before Clemson, so the USC pick doesn't bother me quite as much. BC even has as good a case as Clemson yet they weren't even in most of the snub discussions.
Click to expand...
Several people have been mentioning Clemson, including Doug Gottlieb. That's part of why the "snub" seems so silly. If people say CU didn't beat anyone good ooc, then neither did Clemson (they didn't beat anyone good all year really). If people say CU had bad losses, USC had worse.

At this point, the committee essentially recognizes that they snubbed CU, they're just arguing that they feel they had a legitimate purpose behind it which was to signify how important it is to them for teams to schedule top 50 rpi teams ooc. Anyone arguing that it's not a snub is trying too hard to be the guy with the different opinion, which is what Palm is up to :D
 
Last edited:
CarolinaBuff said:
Why isn't he or anyone else mentioning Clemson? I'd put USC in before Clemson, so the USC pick doesn't bother me quite as much. BC even has as good a case as Clemson yet they weren't even in most of the snub discussions.
Click to expand...

USC had some good wins, but they also had some terrible losses...if you lose by 20 at home to Rider (RIDER!), and follow that up with a loss to Bradley...you better do a damn good job digging out of that hole, and I don't think they did...Clemson's schedule was very ho-hum...no bad losses, but no particularly great wins either...
 
BuffAlum2007 said:
USC had some good wins, but they also had some terrible losses...if you lose by 20 at home to Rider (RIDER!), and follow that up with a loss to Bradley...you better do a damn good job digging out of that hole, and I don't think they did...Clemson's schedule was very ho-hum...no bad losses, but no particularly great wins either...
Click to expand...

Rider isn't all that bad but yea USC had a few nice wins. The thing about Clemson is they play in a weaker conference than the Big 12 and were only 2 games above .500. And apparently the committee didn't notice that ACC semifinal on Saturday afternoon when Clemson completely gave that game away.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
Rider isn't all that bad but yea USC had a few nice wins. The thing about Clemson is they play in a weaker conference than the Big 12 and were only 2 games above .500. And apparently the committee didn't notice that ACC semifinal on Saturday afternoon when Clemson completely gave that game away.
Click to expand...

USC apparently got more brownie points for their win at home against Texas than we did because it was OOC. Interestingly their other big OOC games were Big 12 games against NU (L, that we beat once) and Kansas (who we both lost to). Its not our fault that the Big 12 gave us OSU for our Pac 10-Big 12 challenge game. I think USC's proximity to the largest television market in the country had a lot more to do with their inclusion over other bubble teams than the merits of the comparative resumes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top