Robert Sorell
Well-Known Member
There's no polishing the turd that is this year's Beavs.
The jealousy turned spite towards Colorado being wise enough to get on a life raft as the Pac was capsizing will be the sole motivator.
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
The jealousy turned spite towards Colorado being wise enough to get on a life raft as the Pac was capsizing will be the sole motivator.
TotallyBuffs89
Well-Known Member
My apologies if this has already been explained, but are the following scenarios assumed correctly?
Lose to Utah = Outside bubble looking in (Fingers crossed to stay within the last four in group)
Beat Utah/Lose semi-final game = 11 seed (Last four in) or 10 seed maybe
Beat Utah/Win semi-final game/Lose final = 8-9 seed
Win Tourney = 6-7 seed
Lose to Utah = Outside bubble looking in (Fingers crossed to stay within the last four in group)
Beat Utah/Lose semi-final game = 11 seed (Last four in) or 10 seed maybe
Beat Utah/Win semi-final game/Lose final = 8-9 seed
Win Tourney = 6-7 seed
Yes - if we assume the bracketologists are currently accurate on bids & seeding
Yes. Lunardi has us in his "Out without this win" category. Also know that's different than his "Win and In" category, the subtle difference of which leads me to believe that HE THINKS THAT EVEN IF CU WINS TODAY THEY AREN'T A LOCK. I know I need to stop looking at Lunardi because it's deleterious for for my health, but what the actual ****, lunardi.
In the NET era, no team below 32 has ever been left out, and that was the first year the committee used NET. Since then no team below 40 has ever been left out. Given Utah's in the top 50 now and CU's 26, it's impossible for me to imagine CU will end up below 40 even with a loss today.
That doesn't even touch on the fact that CU has a better resume than Miss St, Virginia, and Seton Hall, all of whom he has in.
Robert Sorell
Well-Known Member
IN CC Stats - NCAA Basketball
www.inccstats.com
I like how this site presents their predictions as a distribution.
I think the spread is maybe a little bigger, e.g 4-7 if they win out, and 10-left out of they lose tonight.
It seems like we need to win tonight to feel pretty safe plus hopefully that will get us into the 10 seed range or at the very least one of the 11s that doesn't have to play in Dayton
Good site.
One bracket guy's view of CU, sounds about right
I am pissed off because it feels like the goalposts are always moving. A few weeks ago, it was “win a few more games, and CU is in.” Then it was “if CU goes 3-1 and the one loss is to Oregon, CU is in”. Then it was “CU finishes on the road; if they get the OSU win they are probably 50-50 but if they beat Oregon they’re a lock”. Then it was “CU is probably 50-50 if they lose their first game in the tourney, but if they win one in the tournament they’re in.” Now it’s “CU is *probably in* with a win, but if they lose they’re out.”
I really think it's actually more about wanting to keep the Pac-12 to a 2 bid conference than anything against us personally. I feel like a lot of these guys decide around mid-February which conferences are worthy of what number of bids, and then they try to move the teams around to fit that narrative. They all had the Pac-12 pegged as 'deserving" 2 bids, but goddammit CU keeps winning, and it's ****ing up their numbers.
Yep. 24 on KenPom now. So using that metric (with NET close to it), we slot as a 6 seed at this time. Yet, some douchebags still have us as a bubble team. There are 13 idot bracketologists covered by Bracket Matrix that still don’t have us as an at large seed at all.
Last edited:
The more teams in means the more money the conference receives.
I don't give **** about the cash right now. All I want is a tourney bid, preferably not an 8 or 9 seed.
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
We're going to be favored over WSU.
FLounda
Think Positive and life will be Positive.
witnessing choices like these, lead to a life a of crime.
The Athletic still doesn’t even have CU in the tourney. The reasoning has gone from not enough Q1 wins to our Q1 wins don’t actually count.
https://theathletic.com/5343928/202...na-state-colorado/?source=user_shared_article
https://theathletic.com/5343928/202...na-state-colorado/?source=user_shared_article
I find some of the reasoning around the NET to be highly circular, especially when it comes to talking about Quad 1 wins. CU is 26 in the NET, Seton Hall is 65. But East coast pundits who can't stay up late enough to watch West coast basketball will cry, Seton Hall has a 5-8 Quad 1 record vs CU's 2-5! But CU is 26 in NET!? If you beat CU at home you get a Quad 1 win. If you beat Seton Hall on a neutral that is a mere Quad 2. Other teams get more credit for beating CU!
IMO, overanalyzing the Quad 1's is dumb. It doesn't favor my preferred team this season. Any college team can have a bad night. Let the NET speak for itself and then look at the other factors, like injuries and how the team has performed recently. That is my pitch for why Colorado should be a 5 seed and all these bracketologists can suck it.
IMO, overanalyzing the Quad 1's is dumb. It doesn't favor my preferred team this season. Any college team can have a bad night. Let the NET speak for itself and then look at the other factors, like injuries and how the team has performed recently. That is my pitch for why Colorado should be a 5 seed and all these bracketologists can suck it.
Well now I don’t feel bad cheating to read their articles for free
I know broken record here, but this is 2011 vibes. Colorado’s overall resume is easily tourney worthy, but between spot stealers and bias, I’m thinking the Buffs are screwed if the season ends today.
Edit: What Denver_sc said. The goalposts keep moving as the Buffs keep winning.
Edit: What Denver_sc said. The goalposts keep moving as the Buffs keep winning.
Last edited:
Robert Sorell
Well-Known Member
Pretty much everyone else on the good side of their bubbles won yesterday too.
The lack of movement makes sense.
The starting point was nonsensical.
I agree that the quadrant records are misused by people trying to compare teams against each other.
The quadrant system is helpful in showing how a team collected the points in the summation of their net ranking.
As a metric of determining big wins, I'd say it is worse than wins against the projected field. (although this gets tricky with bubble teams)
I think it should be used as a secondary or tertiary comparison after comparing net/kenpom/rpi and I would weight it similarly to how a team has done in the last ten games when making comparisons.
Hopefully the committee understands the data they have and how to use it.
The quadrant system is helpful in showing how a team collected the points in the summation of their net ranking.
As a metric of determining big wins, I'd say it is worse than wins against the projected field. (although this gets tricky with bubble teams)
I think it should be used as a secondary or tertiary comparison after comparing net/kenpom/rpi and I would weight it similarly to how a team has done in the last ten games when making comparisons.
Hopefully the committee understands the data they have and how to use it.