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!

Nate Silver Bracket Predictions

I like the statistics and everything, but they need to take into account the style of play. Pitt plays inside on offense which is the strength of our defense. We won't be favored but it's not that extreme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
He was almost 100% on all the election results in 2012. That's much easier than sports, but if I'm gonna bet, I'll listen to the nerds.
 
so-youre-telling-me-theres-a-chance.jpg
 
Goose said:
Every metric other than RPI says Pitt is around a 5 seed and we're a double digit. Not sure why everyone thinks that number is crazy.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying we'll win (or should be them as a slight favorite), but I thought it be closer to 60/40, 65/35. I do agree with you Pitt is underseeded and were overseeded (but not by much in our case), I think we were closer to a 9 (I'm just glad the committee respected us because I would want to be lowered too much as originally feared). I'm the one after all who said 20% was way too high for us beating UF.
 
Goose said:
Every metric other than RPI says Pitt is around a 5 seed and we're a double digit. Not sure why everyone thinks that number is crazy.
Click to expand...

Because I don't believe Pitt is that much better and it's a good matchup for both teams.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm going to keep hoping Nate Silver is going to be exposed as just an exceptionally lucky guesser until he actually makes a prediction I like...
 
buffaholic said:
So we have Nate Silver and we have 'Tini. Who do I trust?
Click to expand...

Because we all know predicting sports is real easy and there's a set statistical model for predicting. What am I doing questioning the lack of matchup data in the predictions!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm not holding out much hope. We just squeaked by USC and Cal, both of which are not nearly as good as Pitt. Of course a win is always possible, but if I had to set a line, I'd put it around 8.
 
Daaah said:
I'm not holding out much hope. We just squeaked by USC and Cal, both of which are not nearly as good as Pitt. Of course a win is always possible, but if I had to set a line, I'd put it around 8.
Click to expand...
Isn't it 5.5 now? So you think our chances are even worse than Vegas.

There's no doubt we can't play like we did against USC, I was encouraged against Cal even if it was closer than it should've been.
 
Daaah said:
I'm not holding out much hope. We just squeaked by USC and Cal, both of which are not nearly as good as Pitt. Of course a win is always possible, but if I had to set a line, I'd put it around 8.
Click to expand...
The line started at 5.5 and has moved down to 4.5 last I checked. Monty is a damn good coach at Cal and they do have talent, I'm not sure what happened to them after the Dick ***** win. USC, I think a lot of that can be explained by the two ass kickings we handed to them and us being very young coming in over confident. It's also not like Pitt hasn't struggled against lesser teams, that logic works both ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
'Tini said:
The line started at 5.5 and has moved down to 4.5 last I checked. Monty is a damn good coach at Cal and they do have talent, I'm not sure what happened to them after the Dick ***** win. USC, I think a lot of that can be explained by the two ass kickings we handed to them and us being very young coming in over confident. It's also not like Pitt hasn't struggled against lesser teams, that logic works both ways.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be nice if the Pitt squad showed up that needed OT to beat Virginia Tech, Miami and Notre Dame, escaped Boston College in the final seconds, and lost to FSU on their home court showed up? Doubt it, but I can hope...:nod:
 
CVilleBuff said:
Wouldn't it be nice if the Pitt squad showed up that needed OT to beat Virginia Tech, Miami and Notre Dame, escaped Boston College in the final seconds, and lost to FSU on their home court showed up? Doubt it, but I can hope...:nod:
Click to expand...
But I thought we were the only team that had some issues with bad teams this season?
 
CU's neutral site performances against Okie Lite and Baylor were uninspired at the beginning of the season, as was the Wazzou game in Spokane.

I hope the same Ski shows up who was the Charleston Classic MVP.

The Buffs don't historically play very well east of the Mississippi. This one is definitely less friendly than the UNLV game in Albuquerque.
 
Skidmark said:
CU's neutral site performances against Okie Lite and Baylor were uninspired at the beginning of the season, as was the Wazzou game in Spokane.

I hope the same Ski shows up who was the Charleston Classic MVP.

The Buffs don't historically play very well east of the Mississippi. This one is definitely less friendly than the UNLV game in Albuquerque.
Click to expand...
They haven't played east of the Mississippi since in the Charleston Classic pre-Thanksgiving 2012 (where they did good) and before that pre-Thanksgiving 2011 in the PR Classic. Tad's first year you had the losses to UGA/Harvard. Would it be better to be playing San Diego of course, I don't think what they did 2-3 years ago and definitely not before that is too relevant.
 
cubuffs85 said:
They haven't played east of the Mississippi since in the Charleston Classic pre-Thanksgiving 2012 (where they did good) and before that pre-Thanksgiving 2011 in the PR Classic. Tad's first year you had the losses to UGA/Harvard. Would it be better to be playing San Diego of course, I don't think what they did 2-3 years ago and definitely not before that is too relevant.
Click to expand...

The sample size is thin for Tadd and this set of players, and I get that.

But this CU East of the Mississippi sentiment extends across sports. The players at CU generally have more connections and draw more supporters in the western half of the country. (The 90 NC game in FB is an exception)
 
It was completely dead in Austin last year, too. Hopefully we don't have another debacle like that. Pitt's support is weak when it comes to travel. Going to be a quiet, neutral arena.
 
Florida is playing in the game after us, if their fans show up towards the end of the game and it's close, maybe they'll be rooting for us since were the "easier" matchup.
 
Goose said:
Every metric other than RPI says Pitt is around a 5 seed and we're a double digit. Not sure why everyone thinks that number is crazy.
Click to expand...

Awesome!!! Everybody knows the best upsets every year are a 12 over a 5! :thumbsup:
 
'Tini said:
I like the statistics and everything, but they need to take into account the style of play. Pitt plays inside on offense which is the strength of our defense. We won't be favored but it's not that extreme.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

This isn't right on either account - Pitt doesn't play inside and CU's inside D isn't nearly as good as it's been the past few years.
 
jgisland said:
This isn't right on either account - Pitt doesn't play inside and CU's inside D isn't nearly as good as it's been the past few years.
Click to expand...

26.8% of their points come from beyond the arc and they get to the line fairly often but not a ton. If their points aren't coming from 3 or the line then where are they coming from? Patterson is the only player on the team to have taken more than 65 three point shots all season but three players have 240+ shots from inside the arc. 10.4% of their shots get blocked to, that's not common if you're shooting from outside.

So you disagree that Scott and Gordon down low isn't the strength of our defense? I'm not saying it's as good as our past D (Dre) but as far as this team goes, it's the strength of our D.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top