I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just speaking reality, or at least what my gut is telling me.
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!
CU MBB Rankings/NET/KenPom/Bracketology Catch-All
- Thread starter FM-Buff
- Start date
I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just speaking reality, or at least what my gut is telling me.
What we really need to do is get the guys from the '11 team together, and play this year's team. That oughta settle it.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
Guys, the '11 team had an RPI of like 80. There was basically zero chance that team was getting in.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
FAU has the same roster that went to the Final Four last year. It would honestly be dumb to leave them out regardless of their weak conference.
I remember being really upset and bummed. However I had never really followed college basketball to that level of detail so it seemed egregious I have a much more nuanced perspective. That being said they still got screwed
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
This is revisionist st history. We were not screwed based on the data. The metrics were AWFUL.
???
ESPN:
SBNation:
RPI wasn’t great at 66, but there was a good degree of consensus that CU got screwed.
Buffsbball
Well-Known Member
There are 19 power conference teams with 22 wins or more…19.
Only two are on the bubble Virginia and Colorado. Both finished 3rd in their conference and are getting compared to 17 and 18 win teams that aren’t even .500 in conference that are 8th or 9th in their conference. Mississippi State, Michigan State, Iowa etc.
Can’t wait for the big 12 when we don’t have to deal with the pac bias anymore…
Basically if Tad just scheduled 4 more losses against top 75 teams in the non conference we’d be in?
Only two are on the bubble Virginia and Colorado. Both finished 3rd in their conference and are getting compared to 17 and 18 win teams that aren’t even .500 in conference that are 8th or 9th in their conference. Mississippi State, Michigan State, Iowa etc.
Can’t wait for the big 12 when we don’t have to deal with the pac bias anymore…
Basically if Tad just scheduled 4 more losses against top 75 teams in the non conference we’d be in?
ZKobalt
Well-Known Member
Thankfully, there are good resources like Torvik's resume comparison
Compare Tourney Resumes - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.
barttorvik.com
and every team that had a similar resume to our team got in.
seattlebuff
Well-Known Member
How the actual **** does Loonardi have Seton Hall as a bye with a NET of 61? And we’re a “last four in” with a 28?
Last edited:
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
And all lost in the first round. Probably baby shouldn't have been in, huhThankfully, there are good resources like Torvik's resume comparison
Compare Tourney Resumes - Customizable College Basketball Tempo Free Stats - T-Rank
T-Rank College Basketball Ratings and Rankings. And fun.barttorvik.com
and every team that had a similar resume to our team got in.
I guess that's sort of the committee logic. Villanova has a resume that says they could be upset or beca cinderella.
CU looks sort of like chalk, which is boring?
Buffsbball
Well-Known Member
Hoping we start receiving votes on this weeks AP poll that would help from a perception POV.
Bubblebuff
Bubble buff
UVA, Northwestern, and South Carolina are the 3 teams ahead of Utah (52) in NET. One or two opening losses from that group, plus the Utes throttling ASU might nudge them into Q1 territory on Th. Shockingly, only 1 of the above teams is on the bubble.
cowe6453
Well-Known Member
he went to St. Joe’s? And then usual Big 10 and SEC d*** riding from ESPN amounting to undeserving teams getting in and overseeding… again - follow the money (this has to be it, right?)
Last edited:
cowe6453
Well-Known Member
I know PAC 12 is prone to being overlooked and shafted every single year despite performing strongly in the tournament (is expected), but this year seems like a whole other level (and not just for CU… Oregon wasn’t even in the conversation despite being top 4 in conference and decent NET most of the year - teams in other conferences (Big 10 and SEC, and I’m ignoring Big 12 given consensus of top conference) the benefit of the doubt with same resume)… could it be especially egregious this year because the PAC 12 is going away (and therefore less monetary incentive to give them any coverage)… and same thing maybe for ACC, which used to be the darling of ESPN come tournament time before Big 10 and SEC took their place?? It’s actually baffling
Last edited:
cowe6453
Well-Known Member
Also I’m glad Rick George said something whether it actually makes a difference or not… has he done this before (can’t recall)? Seems absolutely warranted and if he hasn’t tweeted something like that before (I know Tad has been vocal in the past) he must feel strongly about it as many of us seem to as well
There is no commissioner advocating for Pac-12 teams. There is no media partner advocating for Pac-12 teams. This absolutely matters when a reasonable case can be made for different bubble teams from various conferences.
cowe6453
Well-Known Member
I’d also comment on the apparent hit against teams at altitude for ESPN’s BPI - if true, wow, but I’m not surprised. Seems like a blatant way to penalize western teams when convenient… if we’re going to introduce “subjective” measures like that (I say subjective because hard to measure), why not how far a team has to travel for road game… how loud the opposing teams arena is, how full arena is, etc, etc. (why stop at altitude)
Makes me a little nervous that someone who said this:
Is on the tournament selection committee.
So at the end of the day, just win. The conference bracket set up for us to make a run and with a locked in TDS, anything is possible.
cowe6453
Well-Known Member
I don’t doubt this is part of it.
Just be glad that ESPN doesn't penalize us when we go on the road and play at sea level. The advantage of high altitude training is like we're blood doping when we don't play at altitude. Really, any CU win should count about half as much as it does for other teams. Only fair.
I will as soon as the committee does.For those of you paying attention to Lunardi.
National perception is still a factor, whether they spell it out or not
I think we need Cody and Hammond to play in the pac-12 tournament. Removes another excuse the committee can use to screw us:
"We would have put them in, but they were out their only NBA draft pick, and their backup PG was still out"
^^ Their words, not mine ^^
"We would have put them in, but they were out their only NBA draft pick, and their backup PG was still out"
^^ Their words, not mine ^^