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!

NCAA & NIT Auto-Bids - Bubble Buster Thread

Hoops Fan said:
It seems really hard to see how Oklahoma State does not get in and Oklahoma does (State beat them twice, and beat Kansas and at West Virginia) ... reminds me of CU in Boyle's first year.
Click to expand...
One has a "star" player that would be a lottery pick if he leaves and the other does not. Ratings absolutely matter and they can hype the **** out of Trae Young. There is zero reason why the dirt burglars got in. They have completely collapsed to end the season. They lost 10 road games in a row and couldn't defend my winless little league team from 1989. Never...ever, has a team lost 11 of their last 15 and made the tourney. The selection committee must have put a metric **** ton worth of stock in non con and just slept through conference season...only explanation.
 
Sideburn said:
One has a "star" player that would be a lottery pick if he leaves and the other does not. Ratings absolutely matter and they can hype the **** out of Trae Young. There is zero reason why the dirt burglars got in. They have completely collapsed to end the season. They lost 10 road games in a row and couldn't defend my winless little league team from 1989. Never...ever, has a team lost 11 of their last 15 and made the tourney. The selection committee must have put a metric **** ton worth of stock in non con and just slept through conference season...only explanation.
Click to expand...
It's very frustrating this year that the message is that getting into the tournament has more with how you played in November & December than what you did in February & March. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me that it would be done that way.
 
Buffnik said:
It's very frustrating this year that the message is that getting into the tournament has more with how you played in November & December than what you did in February & March. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me that it would be done that way.
Click to expand...
And particularly since that doesn’t seem to be historically consistent.
 
cu2x said:
I read that they formally dropped the "metric" that put emphasis on the last 10 to 12 games
Click to expand...
I can see the argument either way, but it should be consistent. I rather prefer weighting the entire season equally, but a team slumping at season’s end will not likely get far in the tournament. In many cases getting the invite is a primary goal with advancing being somewhat secondary. Note how we count Tad's invites with a few spoilsports pointing out that not much good has happened once we got there. From that perspective, giving an edge to hot teams at season’s end seems unfair. If they’re hot enough, they’ve got a chance by winning the conference tournament.
 
aghcsm said:
I can see the argument either way, but it should be consistent. I rather prefer weighting the entire season equally, but a team slumping at season’s end will not likely get far in the tournament. In many cases getting the invite is a primary goal with advancing being somewhat secondary. Note how we count Tad's invites with a few spoilsports pointing out that not much good has happened once we got there. From that perspective, giving an edge to hot teams at season’s end seems unfair. If they’re hot enough, they’ve got a chance by winning the conference tournament.
Click to expand...

and they sometimes need to factor in late season injuries.

A fun way to add enjoyment to the tournament is to bet every game with a friend. One person takes all the underdogs, with the points from an agreed source. Bet $5 a game. In the end, nobody wins or losses a lot, but it gives you a rooting interest in each game.
 
Scotch said:
I dunno. I mean Palm is right and all as far as USC is concerned(I still think they should be in) but I don't care who ASU beat and how much they 'challenged themselves.' It is an embarrassment that they are in. Finished 9th ina noatably average conference. November and December should matter but lets not tip the scales here.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying the committee was right, just that's how they chose to approach it.

Buffnik said:
Also, while ASU had a couple huge wins in the non-con its overall non-con schedule was weak. Washington would have been a better pick than ASU.
Click to expand...

Washington's big non-con games were Gonzaga, Kansas, Virginia Tech and Providence. They went 1-3 in those games. Montana, Belmont and UC-Davis have solid RPI's but I don't think those are looked at as signature games against tourney quality teams.

ASU was 4-0 against Xavier, Kansas, Kansas State, and San Diego State. Also had wins against 100-150ish/decent RPI teams in St. John's, UC-Irvine, Vandy, and San Francisco which are not impressive but close to comparable to Washington's decent wins.

I'm not seeing how Washington's OOC performance was weaker EDIT meant to say stronger. I think the logic is that once you get down into that 150+ range of RPI they're all expected wins and don't really mean anything positive.
 
Last edited:
jkppkjjkp said:
I'm not saying the committee was right, just that's how they chose to approach it.



Washington's big non-con games were Gonzaga, Kansas, Virginia Tech and Providence. They went 1-3 in those games. Montana, Belmont and UC-Davis have solid RPI's but I don't think those are looked at as signature games against tourney quality teams.

ASU was 4-0 against Xavier, Kansas, Kansas State, and San Diego State. Also had wins against 100-150ish/decent RPI teams in St. John's, UC-Irvine, Vandy, and San Francisco which are not impressive but close to comparable to Washington's decent wins.

I'm not seeing how Washington's OOC performance was weaker. I think the logic is that once you get down into that 150+ range of RPI they're all expected wins and don't really mean anything positive.
Click to expand...
We beat ASU twice and probably should have beat them a third time. That's all I need to know about that sad sack o' ****e team. Syracuse is garbage, but I hope they annihilate those turds.
 
Some interesting matchups. The Midwest looks toughest, with Michigan St & Duke lower seeds to top seed Kansas. If Arizona gets past Kentucky in Round 2, I like them to win the South. Ayton is a freaking monster now. He's improved a bunch as the season has gone on. Virginia is the 1 seed there, but I think they lack the firepower to go far.

With a full roster, Arizona only lost 3 games all season (@Col, @ WA, UCLA). 3 of their losses were consecutive games in November without Rawle Alkins and a 4th loss was without Alonzo Trier and Sean Miller @ Oregon.

I like New Mexico St to beat 5 seed Clemson in the Midwest.

Also kind of like S. Dakota St over Ohio St in another 12/5 matchup, but not as much as NMSU.
 
Last edited:
Buffnik said:
It's very frustrating this year that the message is that getting into the tournament has more with how you played in November & December than what you did in February & March. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me that it would be done that way.
Click to expand...
The only logic I could see is that they're trying to force more matchups between power conference teams in Nov/Dec.

It would be a really ****ty way to do it, unless they gave ADs a 2-3 year advance notice that they were going to shift their criteria in that manner.
 
jkppkjjkp said:
The only logic I could see is that they're trying to force more matchups between power conference teams in Nov/Dec.

It would be a really ****ty way to do it, unless they gave ADs a 2-3 year advance notice that they were going to shift their criteria in that manner.
Click to expand...
Almost seems like the conference should take a break during conference play for a B1G Challenge or something
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top