Robert Sorell
Well-Known Member
My only hope is that having 3 potential draft picks, and the reflected shine of Prime works a bit in our favor.
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
jumped ship
Well-Known Member
jumped ship
Well-Known Member
love that some posters only seem like supporters of the program if they’re winning 8 games in a row, sweeping road trips, and playing in conference championships. anything else is just unacceptable
NET is the primary tool the selection committee uses to evaluate teams. After all, it is named the NCAA Evaluation Tool. There is no way a top 25 NET team does not make a field of 68. It cannot happen. Especially when that team has won 9 out of its last 10. People don't give a sh*t about Colorado basketball. But I think many would find the exclusion of a top 25 team to be outrageous.
Committee: Hmmm . . . . we have bias against the west and the Pac-12. We can only take three teams. We have to take Oregon, because they won the tournament. And of course AZ, because they obnoxiously chant U-of-A and makes them think they're being patriotic. So that leaves CU or Wazzu. Can't decide. I know, let's make them play each other in a tourney just before the selection and the winner gets in. (But first we have to look at the video review for 12 minutes even though the call has already been made)
Throw BYU in there too even though they're not in a western-based conference
When we got snubbed in 2011, RPI and SOS were still the main metrics used by the committee. This is what we had on that year:
RPI: 66; SOS: 70
This year, NET is the main metrics used by the committee, and we are top 25.
I am not saying we should feel 100% about the selection today, but can we please stop comparing this year to 2011? This is two completely different situations.
RPI: 66; SOS: 70
This year, NET is the main metrics used by the committee, and we are top 25.
I am not saying we should feel 100% about the selection today, but can we please stop comparing this year to 2011? This is two completely different situations.
It probably impossible with his schedule, but it would have been cool if CP announced he would attend each CU tourney game
The reason it is comparable is because Colorado was a consensus “in” among bracketologists in 2011 and was considered a a significant snub by everyone compared to the teams put in over them.
The selection to the tournament is ultimately subjective and up to the whims of committee members, metrics can be used to fit any narrative.
A Tweet/X/whatever saying let's get those Buffs in the tourney from Prime would help
In 2011, we had a resume like Seton Hall does this year.
Buffs1088
Member
Yes I’m sure some random dude in Philly is canceling brunch and explaining “ babe we gotta stay home and watch the 4-8 Quarterback cheer on the lottery pick that can’t even get minutes in crunch time”.
I mean, come on
That feels a little troll-ish, but it was pretty funny.
His name is @PhillyBuff!
It should be based 100% on the brutal NET math. Put in the AQs then start counting down from NET #1.
One other factor is the NBA potential of KJ, TDS, and a more healthy Cody
NBA Teams and Scouts love more and more data and we have it in spades, might be a .0001% factor, but it helps our resume to have those types of guys out there playing
NBA Teams and Scouts love more and more data and we have it in spades, might be a .0001% factor, but it helps our resume to have those types of guys out there playing
You know, that seems to make way too much sense
seattlebuff
Well-Known Member
I agree with this. Yes, 2011 resume and circumstances were very different. But the point is … when you’re on the bubble, you never know, anything can happen and metrics can be presented/interpreted in many ways to fit your narrative.
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Indiana State definitely isn't. St. Johns' resume is decent.....but that loss to 8 win Michigan looks terrible. We don't have an L like that on resume.
ESPN has the Buffs playing TCU in a play-in game. Once CU stomps on the Toads, it's a rematch with Utah State.
Just checked and we aren’t even listed as a bubble team
Buffs1088
Member
That means Vegas thinks we are in, right?
Buffs1088
Member
The last four in is between us TCU St John MSU and Oklahoma. Were not ahead of TCU and all 3 other teams are favored.
Virginia is +400
Not 8 wins.. but losing to 13 win Cal and 14 win ASU is not a good look (9th and 10th place respectively in the Pac12).
No matter how anyone dices it, the numbers are in the Buffs favor. Unfortunately, it is a subjective process and the NCAA may like the the storyline of the St. John's head coach to be back in the tournament.
Draftking doesn't not have Colorado listed on the odd list, that means they don't think Colorado is on the bubble. So if you want to know their opinion, they think Colorado is in already
ahoelsken
Well-Known Member
Back in the tournament? He got there twice in three years with Iona. That argument doesn't hold water.
I'd rather have to explain those losses than losses to Michigan. They're quad 2. Michigan (who beat bubblers St. Johns and Seton Hall) would be a quad 4 any way you swing it.