IMHO, 3-2 the rest of the way and we're a #9 seed.
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
That would surprise me, tbh
Neither were in the poll the prior week. My guess is that some idiot confused them with UA and WSU
So much depends on how much the Committee values NET for selection and seeding. For everyone's reference, below is where CU is and all the teams behind us that fit on my screen. A good number of those teams are assumed "in" by not just Lunardi and Palm, but even the highest accuracy ones like braketometry and 131sports. So I don't know what's going to happen. But I do think we control our own destiny with these final 3 games + quarterfinals game of P12T.
It's not just NET, though. We're missing top-line wins. We have a rough road record. Our strength of record and non-con SOS isn't anything to write home about. Etc. When I do direct comparisons to the resumes of other 'bubble' teams, I get why most people looking at this have us on the outside looking in, at the moment.
However, I like that we have a near-.500 record vs Qs1/2, that we have *zero* bad losses (q3/4), and that NET in the top-30 works in our favor. We're close. We need some breaks. We need a committee that heavily favors NET above other metrics. Above all else, we need to keep winning.
BTW, I find these paragraphs from the NCAA fascinating (https://www.ncaa.com/news/basketbal...madness-each-season?utm_campaign=mbk-rr-links):
"The NET is one of many resources/tools available to the committee in the selection, seeding and bracketing process. Computer models cannot accurately evaluate qualitative factors such as games missed by key players or coaches, travel difficulties and other effects of specific games.
Each committee member independently evaluates a vast amount of information during the process to make individual decisions. It is these qualitative, quantitative and subjective opinions -- developed after hours of personal observations, discussion with coaches, directors of athletics and commissioners, and review and comparison of various data -- that each individual ultimately will determine their vote on all issues related to selections, seeding and bracketing."
The word injury is not found in that link, which I find interesting because it is something I know the committee is allowed to consider. Injury considerations should be a positive for us, we have very little negative on the resume with a fully healthy squad. I'm not up to speed on the injury situation of every other bubble team, but a fully healthy Buffs team could get a little extra help in the considerations. If Cody decides to be healthy.
Well, it does include "qualitative factors such as games missed by key players or coaches".
I've been wondering if we need to pound the drum louder on the whole "we've only played 1/2 our games with our full roster" thing. Pound the drum less loudly on the "we're 10-4 in those games" thing, though.
While I agree that 3-2 is likely the rest of the way I don't think that gets us a 9 seed.
Except the weighted value of results against top opponents and how you perform H/N/A are already baked into NET. If the selection committee wants to focus more on certain data to get a different result than the NET, then change the algorithm. The NET is your resume.
I think 3-2 and we are sweating on selection sunday, provided that the 2 Ls are Oregon and WSU/Arizona.
4-1 we might be a 9 seed but probably a 10.
5-1 I think that puts us as an 8 or 9. We will have picked up 2 more quad 1 wins and probably lost to Arizona in the championship game.
6-0 I think we are an 8 seed but maybe our stock soars.
4-1 we might be a 9 seed but probably a 10.
5-1 I think that puts us as an 8 or 9. We will have picked up 2 more quad 1 wins and probably lost to Arizona in the championship game.
6-0 I think we are an 8 seed but maybe our stock soars.
If we're talking about seeding, I want no part of an 8 or 9 seed this year. Houston, Purdue, UConn and Arizona are the likely 1s and they're a significant cut above the likely 2 seeds. We'd be better positioned for a Sweet 16 run as an 11 seed having to play the extra game.7, 10 or 11 - or a crazy set of breaks to get us a 6.
I agree. It is unfortunate that we can win ourselves into a worse draw. This was the year that we should be a 4 seed and favored to make the sweet 16.
On the resume for selection, the NET quantifies how your record compares to others and KenPom does the same with the focus on the quality of your play. That tells you all you need to know for selecting and seeding the 68. You don't need to pick and choose pieces from those things that you decide to care more about. That's an exercise in justifying a selection or seed which isn't supported by the objective data.
And yet every year top teams lose to lower seeds. So the objective data is not all that goes into the game of basketball.
Of course. Games aren't played on paper. All you can do is use the data to select & seed to put the tournament together. From there, we get the madness that makes it the best postseason in sports.
They might. On NET, the Nubs came in at #41 and tOSU at #65. B1G folks will think they both belong in the tournament. Neither do, imo.
Utah's is going to get the win over Stanford. That's kind of important for us. Not only did we play Utah twice and will only play Stanford once so the Utes have more impact on our resume, but Utah came in at #53 NET. We need them back in the Top 50 for our home win over them to move up to Quad 1.
This year, I'd probably rank the conferences:
1. Big 12
2. SEC
3. Big East
4. Big Ten
5. ACC
6. MWC
7. Pac-12
8. AAC
9. WCC
10. A-10
I haven't looked at the math to see where the various sites rank the conferences.
Edit: Probably should have given the MVC some love. Above the WCC and closer to the AAC than they are to the WCC.
Last edited:
It would need to be top-30
Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75.
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135.
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240.
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353.
Yeah. I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that. I think the only Q1 win possible for us other than the Oregon roadie and the P12T is if Wazzu gets back. But, honestly, I'm kind of hoping they lose to USC tonight and the 2-seed in the conference tourney gets back in play for us.
I didn't know they could take missing coaches into account. Hear me out, what if we just say CU has been missing a coach for 14 years?
Easy money for the #fireTad crowd
Medford M.
Well-Known Member
This is ridiculous. CU is
better than every one of those teams. How the **** is Iowa better odds?
better than every one of those teams. How the **** is Iowa better odds?