Conspiracy theory #2

[dio]

Man, I wonder what this team would have done with Harris-Trunks in the lineup... makes me sad to think about.

 

[JRK1212]

Man, I wonder what this team would have done with Harris-Trunks in the lineup... makes me sad to think about.

Dont forget that we had him last year and even on a team desperate for size he barley got on the court and contrubuted 1 point and 1 rebound per game when he did play. I realize that there were positive reports about him before the season, but there were also glowing reports about Shanon Sharpe and that has not come to fruition, at least yet.

 

[DBT]

Dont forget that we had him last year and even on a team desperate for size he barley got on the court and contrubuted 1 point and 1 rebound per game when he did play. I realize that there were positive reports about him before the season, but there were also glowing reports about Shanon Sharpe and that has not come to fruition, at least yet.

Yep. Hard to know. I think a lot of us go by the reports we heard in the preseason that he'd put on a ton of muscle and Boyle talking up how good he was looking.

 

[sackman]

I think Harris Tunks last year was a lot like Mills this year. I think both are going to be fantastic for us. Our frontcourt should be a strength as we head into Pac 12 play.

 

[Buffnik]

Tunks would have made a huge difference. Having a big guy changes shots around the rim and also allows the perimeter defenders to be more aggressive since they have help in the back.

Shane was our best help defender, our best screen setter (would have freed up more open looks for Cory, Levi and Alec), our best outlet passer (would have helped our fast break), and our best post up option on offense (would have kept defenses more honest).

He's going to be huge for us in 2011-12.

 

[kalbuff]

Listened to Mike and Mike in the Morning on radio this morning. I have read the beginning of this thread as well as many other articles on this issue in papers. It certainly is tempting to see some kind of dark motive in the unfairness of it all. We are all CU fans and are offended. But Digger Phelps commented on the radio show using numbers of "Mid Majors" in past tournaments and the committee's efforts to make it fair considering that teams from lesser conferences ARE successful. Last year's tournament is a classic example. As I recall, Digger had only about five lesser conference at large teams if CU and Va Tech were selected. I recall eight or so teams from last year and this year was an expanded format. This explanation sounds very reasonable to me. Not a complete answer, but at least an answer. When I coached ten year olds in baseball, we had the same dilemma. We had to win and put the best team on the field, but we also had tremendous pressure from parents to play their kids, even if a certain kid might not be the ticket to victory.

 

[Darth Snow]

Listened to Mike and Mike in the Morning on radio this morning. I have read the beginning of this thread as well as many other articles on this issue in papers. It certainly is tempting to see some kind of dark motive in the unfairness of it all. We are all CU fans and are offended. But Digger Phelps commented on the radio show using numbers of "Mid Majors" in past tournaments and the committee's efforts to make it fair considering that teams from lesser conferences ARE successful. Last year's tournament is a classic example. As I recall, Digger had only about five lesser conference at large teams if CU and Va Tech were selected. I recall eight or so teams from last year and this year was an expanded format. This explanation sounds very reasonable to me. Not a complete answer, but at least an answer. When I coached ten year olds in baseball, we had the same dilemma. We had to win and put the best team on the field, but we also had tremendous pressure from parents to play their kids, even if a certain kid might not be the ticket to victory.

Fair enough explanation. One problem: This is not about playing your ****** players. Its about a national championship field.

 

[kalbuff]

I understand your comment, but like most life situations, there are compromises and dilemmas. I suppose I would add.....do you really think the Buffs would contend for the national championship?? I believe the lowest seed to win was Villanova, an eighth seed.

 

[Buffnik]

I understand your comment, but like most life situations, there are compromises and dilemmas. I suppose I would add.....do you really think the Buffs would contend for the national championship?? I believe the lowest seed to win was Villanova, an eighth seed.

I saw a couple analysts pick KSU for the Final 4. If they're a contender, CU would have been.

 

[MtnBuff]

I would have loved to see CU play in the tourney but I don't have any fantasies about this years team winning more than one or two games.

Burks and Higgins are as good as anybody in the tourney but we would be way overmatched inside and have no answer for top flight point guards. Eventually we would hit an opponent who had both the inside game and the point guard and it would be to much to overcome.

In the NIT every team has some weakness. If the Buffs can stay focused they have a legit shot at winning this tourney.

 

[JRK1212]

Eventually we would hit an opponent who had both the inside game and the point guard and it would be to much to overcome.

I disagree. We have won plenty of games this year against teams who were more talented and were better inside. Texas, K-State 3 times, Mizzou, almost beat KU twice, should have beaten A&M. We would not be favored in any game, but we have shown that we can play with anyone. A run deep into the tourney was entirely possible.

 

[SuperD]

Listened to Mike and Mike in the Morning on radio this morning. I have read the beginning of this thread as well as many other articles on this issue in papers. It certainly is tempting to see some kind of dark motive in the unfairness of it all. We are all CU fans and are offended. But Digger Phelps commented on the radio show using numbers of "Mid Majors" in past tournaments and the committee's efforts to make it fair considering that teams from lesser conferences ARE successful. Last year's tournament is a classic example. As I recall, Digger had only about five lesser conference at large teams if CU and Va Tech were selected. I recall eight or so teams from last year and this year was an expanded format. This explanation sounds very reasonable to me. Not a complete answer, but at least an answer. When I coached ten year olds in baseball, we had the same dilemma. We had to win and put the best team on the field, but we also had tremendous pressure from parents to play their kids, even if a certain kid might not be the ticket to victory.

If that is their logic...fine, then why the eff didn't they take say Harvard and New Mexico, both mid-majors with better RPI's and in the case of New Mexico a legit shot of at least winning a game. Why not? Because it all comes down to back room vote trading when its the last 20 or so teams...

 

[CarolinaBuff]

I saw a couple analysts pick KSU for the Final 4. If they're a contender, CU would have been.

Just because a couple of analysts picked KSU for the Final 4 doesn't mean they're a legit contender. Could we have made some noise in this tournament? Sure, but no way in hell was this team a legit contender to win it all. We'd all love to believe that, but come on.

RE: Kalbuff
What you're saying about the success of mid-majors in past tournaments is definitely true (heck, it's fact), but to purposely give them a couple of bids at the expense of more deserving major conference teams like ourselves would not only be wrong, it would go against one of their so-called principles of "we don't pick at-large teams based on conference affiliation". I'm not saying that didn't weigh into their decision though, heck nobody really knows. But if it did weigh into their decision, then they did a very poor job of upholding how the committee should do their job. Or should I say an even worse job, because we already know they did a poor job. :lol:

 

[GoBuffs!!]

I would have loved to see CU play in the tourney but I don't have any fantasies about this years team winning more than one or two games.

Burks and Higgins are as good as anybody in the tourney but we would be way overmatched inside and have no answer for top flight point guards. Eventually we would hit an opponent who had both the inside game and the point guard and it would be to much to overcome.

In the NIT every team has some weakness. If the Buffs can stay focused they have a legit shot at winning this tourney.

I completly disagree, look at our losses, they came when we either 1. didnt come to play, or 2. Played Kansas. Kansas is one of the favorites to winning the whole thing. Yes we came close to beating them, twice, we arent that bad. KU has the top flight guards, and the top tier big men, and we still played them close.

I am not saying we would have made a run, but we have the talent to do so, and I am willing to say many analysts would have picked us as possibly this years cinderella, depending on our matchups.