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!

Bracketology 2013/2014

rolandftw said:
Don't get all the Lunardi hate. Make no mistake about it, this team was in dangerous, dangerous territory had they not gotten a win this week.
Click to expand...

From me, it's not hate. But it gets annoying when you look at it and see him putting the Buffs on the same line as teams that are 30 spots behind in RPI. Or when he's got the Buffs behind a team with a worse RPI and a worse Pac-12 record and a worse overall record and a worse non-conference Strength of Schedule. It's like he's thrown out the criteria anyone outside of ESPN is using. No one else gives a flying **** about the "Bristol Pointless Index".
 
Buffnik said:
But it gets annoying when you look at it and see him putting the Buffs on the same line as teams that are 30 spots behind in RPI. Or when he's got the Buffs behind a team with a worse RPI and a worse Pac-12 record and a worse overall record and a worse non-conference Strength of Schedule. It's like he's thrown out the criteria anyone outside of ESPN is using. No one else gives a flying **** about the "Bristol Pointless Index".
Click to expand...

I guess I can understand that, although I definitely think you need more then RPI and SOS numbers. Legitimate gripe with Cal, although I do think they are likely to finish the year strong (hope not tho)
 
Buffnik said:
From me, it's not hate. But it gets annoying when you look at it and see him putting the Buffs on the same line as teams that are 30 spots behind in RPI. Or when he's got the Buffs behind a team with a worse RPI and a worse Pac-12 record and a worse overall record and a worse non-conference Strength of Schedule. It's like he's thrown out the criteria anyone outside of ESPN is using. No one else gives a flying **** about the "Bristol Pointless Index".
Click to expand...

I agree, however, the BPI is much more in line with ratings like Sagarin and KenPom. Although, just like those, it doesn't mean jack. The BPI actually favors us more than those two ratings does right now.

In recent years, Lunardi has been lights out with his picks of teams that make the tournament (but anyone could be if they just went straight off of RPI), but his seedings have been a bit off compared to what the committee has come up with.

That's why I laugh to myself when everyone gets all excited about sites, match ups, and seedings at this point. It's fun to think about, but that's anyone's guess until about the day before selection Sunday, and even then, it's just an educated guess.
 
Last edited:
rolandftw said:
I guess I can understand that, although I definitely think you need more then RPI and SOS numbers. Legitimate gripe with Oregon, but they are getting hot at the right time.
Click to expand...

Unless the Selection Committee changes the way it has operated for years, we'll be able to go through things on Selection Sunday and see the following:

1. At-large bids will go almost to chalk to the RPI ranks.
2. Exceptions to that will be driven by non-conference SOS.
3. Seeds 1-6 in the 4 brackets will go almost to chalk to the AP Top 25.
4. Other seeds will be driven by RPI, travel, avoiding early matchups between teams from the same conference, and what could generate a "hook" for tv in the rounds of 64 and 32.
 
Buffnik said:
Unless the Selection Committee changes the way it has operated for years, we'll be able to go through things on Selection Sunday and see the following:

1. At-large bids will go almost to chalk to the RPI ranks.
2. Exceptions to that will be driven by non-conference SOS.
3. Seeds 1-6 in the 4 brackets will go almost to chalk to the AP Top 25.
4. Other seeds will be driven by RPI, travel, avoiding early matchups between teams from the same conference, and what could generate a "hook" for tv in the rounds of 64 and 32.
Click to expand...

And at least one or two Pac teams will get underseeded or ****ed over entirely in favor of someone from the SEC.
 
Buffnik said:
Unless the Selection Committee changes the way it has operated for years, we'll be able to go through things on Selection Sunday and see the following:

1. At-large bids will go almost to chalk to the RPI ranks.
2. Exceptions to that will be driven by non-conference SOS.
3. Seeds 1-6 in the 4 brackets will go almost to chalk to the AP Top 25.
4. Other seeds will be driven by RPI, travel, avoiding early matchups between teams from the same conference, and what could generate a "hook" for tv in the rounds of 64 and 32.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, although I do think there are exceptions where a Top 40 RPI team from a power 6 conference wouldn't make it.
 
Buffnik said:
Has that happened since the field expanded to 68?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, but we've only had 68 teams for what? 3 years?

I think the Dinwiddie injury, a .500 record in Conference play, and a 1-8 record against the Top 5 teams in Conference play might have done CU in. Thankfully, don't have to worry about that, as CU should be a lock now.
 
rolandftw said:
I don't think so, but we've only had 68 teams for what? 3 years?

I think the Dinwiddie injury, a .500 record in Conference play, and a 1-8 record against the Top 5 teams in Conference play might have done CU in. Thankfully, don't have to worry about that, as CU should be a lock now.
Click to expand...

I just don't think we were in danger. Buffs may have gotten stuck in the play-in game, but not left out. The teams on the bubble have so many holes on their resumes.
 
Imagine if the Pac was like the SEC this year. Arizona good, UCLA struggling as much as Kentucky, and most of the conference well below 100. Do you think we'd be looking at landing five tournament bids? Because the SEC is.
 
CVilleBuff said:
Imagine if the Pac was like the SEC this year. Arizona good, UCLA struggling as much as Kentucky, and most of the conference well below 100. Do you think we'd be looking at landing five tournament bids? Because the SEC is.
Click to expand...

At least CU would have 24 or more wins and be considered a lock after the latest blowout of Auburn.
 
Buffnik said:
I just don't think we were in danger. Buffs may have gotten stuck in the play-in game, but not left out. The teams on the bubble have so many holes on their resumes.
Click to expand...

Well regardless of whether they would have been in or not, the win should ease any concerns people like me, might have had. Team did what they had to do. Got a very quality road win.
 
rolandftw said:
Well regardless of whether they would have been in or not, the win should ease any concerns people like me, might have had. Team did what they had to do. Got a very quality road win.
Click to expand...

I'll drink to that. We're playing for seeding now. And I'd rather get screwed onto the 11 line and see the team have a chip on its shoulder than get stuck between 7-10 and have a bit of a no-hoper in the Round of 32.

The 6 is within range with a win at Cal and making the finals of the P12T.
 
CVilleBuff said:
Imagine if the Pac was like the SEC this year. Arizona good, UCLA struggling as much as Kentucky, and most of the conference well below 100. Do you think we'd be looking at landing five tournament bids? Because the SEC is.
Click to expand...

Dunno if Tennessee, Arkansas and Missouri all end up making it. They all have a chance to make it tho, if they finish strong. Imagine 1 or 2 make it.
 
rolandftw said:
Dunno if Tennessee, Arkansas and Missouri all end up making it. They all have a chance to make it tho, if they finish strong. Imagine 1 or 2 make it.
Click to expand...

Doubt all 3 do. Probably Arkansas and the Vols. But I know how it would go if this was the Pac with the numbers they have...maybe 1.
 
CVilleBuff said:
Doubt all 3 do. Probably Arkansas and the Vols. But I know how it would go if this was the Pac with the numbers they have...maybe 1.
Click to expand...

The only thing keeping some of those teams in RPI range is that every loss to Florida or Kentucky is beefing up their SOS. Great teams raise the others up even if the others are decidedly mediocre. I don't think any team in the SEC below UF & UK in 2014 is as good as the UA & UW teams that got left out from the Pac-12 in 2012. But the 2011-12 Pac-12 didn't have any Top 25 teams to raise everyone else up.
 
CVilleBuff said:
Doubt all 3 do. Probably Arkansas and the Vols. But I know how it would go if this was the Pac with the numbers they have...maybe 1.
Click to expand...

Dunno. Can't remember the Pac being in that kind of position. Know it was down in 2011, but it was down at the top too. Washington should have probably made it that year, but they were really the only other worthy team.
 
rolandftw said:
I don't think so, but we've only had 68 teams for what? 3 years?

I think the Dinwiddie injury, a .500 record in Conference play, and a 1-8 record against the Top 5 teams in Conference play might have done CU in. Thankfully, don't have to worry about that, as CU should be a lock now.
Click to expand...
I still think we need either a win at Cal or to avoid a bad loss. We can still make it if we lose out but I wouldn't say were a lock at this point. JMO
 
rolandftw said:
Dunno. Can't remember the Pac being in that kind of position. Know it was down in 2011, but it was down at the top too. Washington should have probably made it that year, but they were really the only other worthy team.
Click to expand...

We've seen the Pac get screwed repeatedly in seeding, for instance Oregon as a 12 last year after winning the Pac tournament was laughable. Leaves me little confidence in our bubble teams getting respect other power conferences get.
 
sliderNcider said:
Well you should be.
Click to expand...
Unlike what Darth said, I can be convinced. I'm not going to lie here, as it stands right now if we lost out (including to Utah or Wazzu), then I would be nervous on Selection Sunday after the 2011 debacle. If we avoid a "bad loss" I think we're safely in. That's my position. I don't think I'm taking a controversial position.
 
cubuffs85 said:
I still think we need either a win at Cal or to avoid a bad loss. We can still make it if we lose out but I wouldn't say were a lock at this point. JMO
Click to expand...

I think this win put CU in. They've done enough to get in imo. Still, you don't want to lose to a USC or Washington State.
 
cubuffs85 said:
Unlike what Darth said, I can be convinced. I'm not going to lie here, as it stands right now if we lost out (including to Utah or Wazzu), then I would be nervous on Selection Sunday after the 2011 debacle. If we avoid a "bad loss" I think we're safely in. That's my position. I don't think I'm taking a controversial position.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top