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 Rank in CFP Poll - 11/1: #15

Where will CU be ranked in the CFP Poll?

  • 12 or better

  • 13

  • 14

  • 15

  • 16

  • 17

  • 18

  • 19

  • 20

  • 21 or worse

Results are only viewable after voting.
Starting to feel like 2001
Our near INT vsUSC =our INT thrown vs Fresno? Both end up costing us a national championship game/playoff berth?
Of course Bama is the new version of the team we didn't want to play then Miami
 
Unleash Hell said:
Starting to feel like 2001
Our near INT vsUSC =our INT thrown vs Fresno? Both end up costing us a national championship game/playoff berth?
Of course Bama is the new version of the team we didn't want to play then Miami
Click to expand...

IIRC ... having to settle for the Fiesta Bowl and Oregon didn't work out very well for us either that year.
 
Hahaha ... funny how "15" has picked up a few votes in the poll since, you know ... THE RANKINGS CAME OUT!!! :D
 
L Buff said:
IIRC ... having to settle for the Fiesta Bowl and Oregon didn't work out very well for us either that year.
Click to expand...

We didn't show up for that game. Most disappointing game of the Barnett era, to me. Could have had a #2 ranking, instead got boatraced.
 
Alfred91 said:
We didn't show up for that game. Most disappointing game of the Barnett era, to me. Could have had a #2 ranking, instead got boatraced.
Click to expand...

Yeah ... it was the most disappointing to me too. Although the 70-3 beatdown by VY & Co. in the CCG in 2005 is a close second. Didn't expect to win that game, but also didn't expect to lose it like that.

But re the Fiesta Bowl in 2001 ... I have to believe that the "recruiting party" that occurred in early December after the CCG and that started the whole "scandal" may have contributed to some team dissension and unpleasantness in the interim between that game and the bowl. But just speculation on my part.
 
I'm sorry to disagree with others but I'd love to play Bama. Are we ready for that, no. That's why you play this game though.
 
Alfred91 said:
We didn't show up for that game. Most disappointing game of the Barnett era, to me. Could have had a #2 ranking, instead got boatraced.
Click to expand...

I still believe if that running back (Onterrio Smith?) didn't get that crazy touchdown where everyone on our D seemed to think he was already down, the game would have been different. I barely remember but I seem to recall that completely deflating the team.
 
Jeric said:
FiveThirtyEight projects us to have a 42% chance of making the playoff if we win out.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-college-football-predictions/
Click to expand...

Cool tool, but it is off from the gambling market by quite a bit on a lot of these predicitions and even small differences compound quickly when you are forecasting many games. For example the differences for the next game for a bunch of the teams between their model and the betting market:

CU vs UCLA: 538 says 69%, betting market says 80%
Bama vs LSU: 538 says 61%, betting market says 74%
Washington vs Cal: 538 says 79%, betting market says
Wisconsin vs N'western: 538 says 61%, betting market says 71%

I didn't look at every instance but they almost universally overrate the chance of an upset happening in a given game. On one hand, this means they are probably universally underrating the chance of each team winning out, which means we have a better than 13% chance of winning out. On the other hand, it likely means they are also overrating the chance of a 2 loss team making the playoff. So it's probably a wash with regard to their 6% figure but that's without actually doing the math.
 
The site is MSN ... but there's a Fox Sports logo accompanying the item ... which one is the writer from?

Nonetheless ... as others have said, just keep winning. And **** them.
 
L Buff said:
The site is MSN ... but there's a Fox Sports logo accompanying the item ... which one is the writer from?

Nonetheless ... as others have said, just keep winning. And **** them.
Click to expand...
MSN consolidates the news sources. It's from Fox.

Just keep winning.
 
Wow. This is allsome. CU in the playoff would absolutely be the top story.

Any way that we could get the Fiesta Bowl instead of the Peach Bowl?
 
This post was in reference to UW, but the last sentence caught my eye.
http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post...-washington-is-still-on-track-for-the-playoff

Of the eight teams that have started in the top four the past two seasons -- the first of the playoff era -- only three ended up in the final playoff field.
Last year, Stanford was the Pac-12's top-ranked team in the committee's first batch of rankings when it came in at No. 11. The Cardinal was 7-1 at the time and lost once more before finishing on the outside at No. 5. Oklahoma (No. 15) and Michigan State (No. 7) were afterthoughts at this time a year ago and played their way in.
Click to expand...
 
Uncle Ken said:
No love.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nca...ally-wrong/ss-AAjIex8?ocid=spartanntp#image=4
Click to expand...

7f9306a486d10aa77d6a7a2720ad6045a2e0135477ec37ed719f56f3d2504126.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top