And I would have it in reverse. And neither team one or two should not be seeded higher than the Buffs to begin with.
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!
Blind Resume Comparison
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
And I would have it in reverse. And neither team one or two should not be seeded higher than the Buffs to begin with.
cool. I picked team 1 before I read the comments. I figured that they played more games against stronger opponents, so they probably come from a tougher conference. Of course, not knowing who they are, they could be from the same conference.
But, overall, it was pretty close to choose. Did they play each other?
Found this on the FoxSports web site.
Cal: After a tough loss to Colorado on Thursday, there's nothing more Cal can do to speak for itself before Selection Sunday. The Golden Bears have to hope that their resume - which includes road wins over Stanford and Oregon and home victories against Arizona and Colorado - will be enough to convince the committee that they're on the right side of the bubble.
Iowa: The Hawkeyes have been plummetingover the last month or so, and that freefall continued Thursday against Northwestern, with a 67-62 loss in the Big Ten first round. There was a time when Iowa was a lock, but now it's looking likely that they miss the tournament altogether.
Cal: After a tough loss to Colorado on Thursday, there's nothing more Cal can do to speak for itself before Selection Sunday. The Golden Bears have to hope that their resume - which includes road wins over Stanford and Oregon and home victories against Arizona and Colorado - will be enough to convince the committee that they're on the right side of the bubble.
Iowa: The Hawkeyes have been plummetingover the last month or so, and that freefall continued Thursday against Northwestern, with a 67-62 loss in the Big Ten first round. There was a time when Iowa was a lock, but now it's looking likely that they miss the tournament altogether.
When you get down to the last teams on the bubble, there really isn't going to be much difference in resumes. It's going to be splitting hairs one way or the other. Conference, perception, etc are all going to matter. I'll bet there are a dozen teams for the last 4-5 slots that would look nearly identical if you did this type of blind comparison.
:nod:
What you hope for is that the committee uses a consistent criteria from among the 12 teams they're considering.
Take the 4-6 teams that played the toughest non-con schedule -- or take the the teams that have the highest quality wins -- or take the teams that have avoided bad losses -- or take the teams that have been hottest since the start of February.
What I don't like is when they mix and match. That's where a team that might be Top 4 on all criteria could be left out by not being one of the two best on any single criterion.
It's worse. Quite a bit, actually. Only 6-6 against a weak non-con schedule and not as many high quality wins.
Who is it?
Is that Georgia?
I think that's what just about everyone would like to see considering that the differences are so small among the final pool of bubble teams. Like Bilas has asked in the past - What exactly is the criteria? But obviously they'll never give a clear answer on that.
Nebraska?
Agree with this. For instance, even though I do think Virginia is a very good team, they only played Duke, UNC, and Syracuse once each.
scoob
Well-Known Member
Yeah, Georgia. And nik's right, it is quite a bit worse than Iowa now that I look at it. Probably a bad comparison. Not much different than Arkansas or Missouri though, but since their bubbles have probably burst now, I guess it's kind of irrelevant.
Just looked Scoob's team up and Nebraska's actually debatably worse than that one. And yet they're in. **** the B1G.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
You could argue that's Duke, UNC and Syracuse being fortunate, too. Especially Duke, as that game was in Cameron. And Virginia won the ACC by a full 3 games.
Good point. I do think Virginia is the best team in that conference, so like you said, probably helped those 3 teams not having to play Virginia twice than it helped Virginia to only play them once. But who knows. Point being, conference record, even between teams in the same conference, can be deceiving.
Compare it to Nebraska if they lose to Ohio State today. Won't be that much worse.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
I agree with your overall point, absolutely. In Virginia's case though, they're generally being seen as a 2 or 3. Even if they win the ACC tournament they'll likely be a 2 (a 1 looks out of reach). ACC teams are definitely often over seeded. This year it's once again likely Duke and UNC both get a higher seed than deserved.
Seriously, Nebraska's numbers blow. I'm really confused why they're sitting so pretty right now.
Sure. Look at the Pac-12. Buffs only played the Oregon and Bay Area schools once each. But did that hurt us more than it helped us? We went 3-1 against them. Would it have been 6-2 against the Top 100 in our record if we'd played them more? Probably. Would have worked out better than 4 each against the Washington and SoCal schools for us this year.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
The B1G circle jerk by the media can never be overstated.
Completely agree. I don't think it would be unreasonable to think we would have beaten Cal and Stanford at home OSU on the road with Oregon on the road being a toss up game, but lets say loss to get to that 6-2 mark. That would give us the exact same conference record, but 2 more RPI 100 wins as well as boost our SOS
With their win over Wisconsin, Massey has them rated 38 - Colorado 37. Not RPI or BPI exactly, but another way to look at SOS and results. I would expect anyone rated >48 or so to get in, with the remaining depending on tournament winners and auto-bids.
OUBuff
American
Is Lunardi THE selection committee?
I still think if UVA wins the ACC tourney that they will be a 1 seed.
To the ESPN talking heads he is. The only guy I've seen disagree with him is Seth Greenberg, and it's not like we should trust Seth's opinion on the Bubble. :lol:
This discussion of blind resumes is irrelevant without being able to see their BPI numbers
:lol:
:lol:
OUBuff
American
While Lunardi seems to have a pretty good record as far as teams making the tourney, I find it funny just how much stock people place in his or anybody else's bracket predictions.
He's on ESPN :rolling_eyes:
OUBuff
American
Well, I have to admit, I look at it every week and take comfort in seeing CU in the listing, but I don't treat his predictions like a foregone conclusion.
I guess it is like the football polls, it gives fans something to argue about during the season.
cubuffs85
Active Member
How about Bill Walton's idea of giving him a show with Nate Silver? Who did he want moderating it again, I think KO, but I'm not 100% sure there.
He doesn't miss more than one a year or something. I think it's a good barometer of who will get in, not as much the seeds but that's harder in the first place.
Last edited by a moderator: