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!

CU MBB Rankings/NET/KenPom/Bracketology Catch-All

Ok... One more complaint session and then I'll be done. I'm super pumped to watch this team in the tournament, but it's absurd that CU ended up as a 10 seed in the play-in game against another solid team when other teams with inferior or nearly identical resumes got higher seeds (and in Clemson's case, a much higher seed). It sucks, but it is what it is. I hope this team shows the committee how wrong they were .

1710777390500.png

The one that pisses me off the most is Mississippi State; a freaking 8 seed when they had a resume that screamed "last 4 in;" all of the most similar resumes to Miss St were ALL last 4 in:

1710777665479.png
 
Denver_sc said:
Ok... One more complaint session and then I'll be done. I'm super pumped to watch this team in the tournament, but it's absurd that CU ended up as a 10 seed in the play-in game against another solid team when other teams with inferior or nearly identical resumes got higher seeds (and in Clemson's case, a much higher seed). It sucks, but it is what it is. I hope this team shows the committee how wrong they were .

View attachment 70520
Click to expand...
It's time to give the committee what they want, a strong ooc schedule.

Apparently going 1-4 in Q1/Q2 >>> than 5-0 vs Q3; and Q3/Q4 losses don't seem to hurt.
 
Seems like away record and quad 1 hurts....and, Tad might be an outlier in the coaching community.
 
I've said this before, but I think scheduling was unusually harder this year due to the pending Big XII move. Neither party from any Big XII opponent would've wanted to do a one off game this year, with no chance for a return home non-conference game next year.

We also took Wyoming and Air Force off our schedule, MWC teams that have been in our regular scheduling rotation, they were both bad MWC teams this year. Would that have been a metric improvement just by being higher quality opponents than Utah Tech and Pepperdine as examples? Definitely not teams that move the needle in what the committee was looking for.

This problem largely goes away in the Big XXII. Would be nice to add a non conference series against a New Mexico/Nevada/UNLV level opponent though.
 
Buffnik said:
With the expansion of D1 to 362 teams, there are too many good teams left out. Tournament needs to expand to 76 teams, imo.
Click to expand...
I would argue we need to reduce the number of DI teams. Three hundred sixty too many. Some of these schools I have never even heard of, like Longwood U. getting a bid by winning the Ohio River Valley Trade School conference dilutes the tourney.
 
Robert Sorell said:
It's time to give the committee what they want, a strong ooc schedule.

Apparently going 1-4 in Q1/Q2 >>> than 5-0 vs Q3; and Q3/Q4 losses don't seem to hurt.
Click to expand...
SOS OOC scheduling is tough before the season, pre-season the Miami game was supposed to be a big boost...
 
Here are the 2024 opponents in terms of NET, compared to how they ended 2023. Not every game was scheduled in the offseason, but overall we had a total of -162 compared to 2023, so just bad luck from the scheduling gods. Iona and Miami especially hurt us this year

Opponent2023 NET2024 NETDifference
Towson129149-20
Grambling State *180279-99
Milwaukee **210214-4
Richmond **15973+86
Florida State **22196+125
Iona58210-152
Colorado State *11036+74
Pepperdine201226-25
Miami35101-66
Northern Colorado235187+48
Utah Tech156285-129

* Grambling State and CSU were schedule before the 2023 season
** Milwaukee, Richmond, and FSU were part of the Sunshine Slam field
 
It does feel like the committee values q1 win differently. MSU beating Baylor carries much more weight than us beating WSU.
 
jumped ship said:
a rare point where I strongly disagree. 64 was perfect, 68 was an ok change. 76 is just a money grab and diluting the purity of the tourney. that’s what conference tourneys are for
Click to expand...

There's no need to expand from a competitive standpoint. Everybody has a chance to play their way in with conference tourneys and you can argue that's 4 or 5 extra games a team would have to win, but if you weren't good enough to get one of the 32 at-large spots then it should be tougher for you to get in.

So every team in the country has a chance to play their way into the tournamet regardless of how bad they were during the season.
 
Robert Sorell said:
Lunardi by seed

1 = 4/4
2 = 4/4
3 = 3/4
4 = 3/4
5 = 1/4
6 = 0/4
7 = 0/4
8 = 1/4
9 = 1/4
10 = 1/6
11 = 2/4
12 = 3/4
13 = 3/4
14 = 4/4
15 = 3/4
16 = 5/6

Seeds 5 through 11 were hot garbage.
Click to expand...
Pitch Perfect GIF
 
tante said:
Here are the 2024 opponents in terms of NET, compared to how they ended 2023. Not every game was scheduled in the offseason, but overall we had a total of -162 compared to 2023, so just bad luck from the scheduling gods. Iona and Miami especially hurt us this year

Opponent2023 NET2024 NETDifference
Towson129149-20
Grambling State *180279-99
Milwaukee **210214-4
Richmond **15973+86
Florida State **22196+125
Iona58210-152
Colorado State *11036+74
Pepperdine201226-25
Miami35101-66
Northern Colorado235187+48
Utah Tech156285-129

* Grambling State and CSU were schedule before the 2023 season
** Milwaukee, Richmond, and FSU were part of the Sunshine Slam field
Click to expand...

wow, this really reveals how bad this seasons OOC scheduling was. I know it's hard for us to get home and homes with quality opponents, but not a single top 25 non-con opponent is lame
 
CU's resume:

NET 25
KPI 32
SOR 37
BPI 44
KP 27

KPI/SOR average seems pretty correlated to which teams got selected. Probably the number I'm going to focus on next year, because it went chalk to that on the teams which got at-large bids other than Indiana State should have been in over Michigan State on this rank.
 
Buffnik said:
CU's resume:

NET 25
KPI 32
SOR 37
BPI 44
KP 27

KPI/SOR average seems pretty correlated to which teams got selected. Probably the number I'm going to focus on next year, because it went chalk to that on the teams which got at-large bids other than Indiana State should have been in over Michigan State on this rank.
Click to expand...

Where do you find the kpi numbers?
 
Denver_sc said:
Ok... One more complaint session and then I'll be done. I'm super pumped to watch this team in the tournament, but it's absurd that CU ended up as a 10 seed in the play-in game against another solid team when other teams with inferior or nearly identical resumes got higher seeds (and in Clemson's case, a much higher seed). It sucks, but it is what it is. I hope this team shows the committee how wrong they were .

View attachment 70520

The one that pisses me off the most is Mississippi State; a freaking 8 seed when they had a resume that screamed "last 4 in;" all of the most similar resumes to Miss St were ALL last 4 in:

View attachment 70521
Click to expand...
I think this may be an indicator that the committee did their initial seeding mostly prior to the conference tourneys and was mostly adjusting for the AQs when they moved teams late. Though I can't really explain how Wazzou gets a 7 seed over us.
 
SuperD said:
I think this may be an indicator that the committee did their initial seeding mostly prior to the conference tourneys and was mostly adjusting for the AQs when they moved teams late. Though I can't really explain how Wazzou gets a 7 seed over us.
Click to expand...
I think that happens. They always have challenges with seeding since they don't have 1st round rematches, need to spread conference bids across regions, and want to reward top seeds as much as possible with a location that's friendly to their fans. No way they can start from ground zero on Sunday morning.
 
buffs233 said:
For everyone criticizing Joe Lunardi, he got 67 of 68 picks right. Only missed Virginia in and Oklahoma out.
Click to expand...
Wanted to come back to this because Bracket Matrix updated with their final rankings.

Out of 226 published brackets that they monitored, 166 (the vast, vast majority) correctly projected 67 of the 68 teams or better. Lunardi's ranked as the 168th most accurate, because 24 brackets that got only 66 of the 68 teams right were more accurate than his was. This means that only 23 brackets out of 166 that got at least 67/68 teams were less accurate than his.

Here's the screen capture (or you can go here for the data):

1711384813087.png

Decoding the numbers, top to bottom:

  • Revision of bracket (all are"F" for final)
  • Number of teams correctly predicted
  • Number of teams correctly seeded
  • Number of teams correctly seeded +/-1 seed
  • Accuracy score (best was 355, lowest was 269, but only 5 scored less than 312)
 
Denver_sc said:
Wanted to come back to this because Bracket Matrix updated with their final rankings.

Out of 226 published brackets that they monitored, 166 (the vast, vast majority) correctly projected 67 of the 68 teams or better. Lunardi's ranked as the 168th most accurate, because 24 brackets that got only 66 of the 68 teams right were more accurate than his was. This means that only 23 brackets out of 166 that got at least 67/68 teams were less accurate than his.

Here's the screen capture (or you can go here for the data):

View attachment 70714

Decoding the numbers, top to bottom:

  • Revision of bracket (all are"F" for final)
  • Number of teams correctly predicted
  • Number of teams correctly seeded
  • Number of teams correctly seeded +/-1 seed
  • Accuracy score (best was 355, lowest was 269, but only 5 scored less than 312)
Click to expand...
My word that guy sucks.
 
Birch1 said:
My word that guy sucks.
Click to expand...
It's true, you know.

Just for ****s and giggles, I looked up the guys that finished directly above and below Lunardi, perhaps the most famous bracketologist in the US. "Scott," who finished right in front of Lunardi, is "scottsbracketology.weebly.com" and the guy right below Lunardi is (I'm not kidding) "SyracuseFan7 Bracket Projections" on Blogspot. SyracuseFan7 finished in a dead tie with Joe Lunardi, ESPN's preeminent bracketologist.

Also, before anyone asks "but what about that asshole Jerry Palm, who had CU in his 'first 4 out'?" He somehow did worse than Lunardi, finishing an astonishing 213th out of 226 brackets:

1711403775039.png
 
At the end of it all, CU proved that they deserved to be included in the tournament. That is what matters most.
 
The only thing that I'm going to add to this thread before forgetting about it is that our NET suggested that we should have been a 6 seed. We played like we should have been a 6 seed. A 6 is still "supposed" to get eliminated in the round of 32, so take that FWIW, but we countered the disrespect with a strong showing that left most observers impressed. The only sad thing is that we probably have to completely rebuild, instead of being to use this year as a launching pad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top