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!

NET Watch 2020

CSU is suddenly not sucking, and their schedule is favorable to end the season. They might end up being a better win than we thought it might be.
 
Alfred91 said:
CSU is suddenly not sucking, and their schedule is favorable to end the season. They might end up being a better win than we thought it might be.
Click to expand...

It would be nice if they moved up a bit to help our SOS. They only play SDSU once and that game is on the road so it's not likely they get that W.

EDIT: Just took a closer look and they did play SDSU at home back in early December and lost by 22
 
OP updated trough Sunday, 2/2 games.

Buffs are at #17 NET, same as last Monday.

Record improved to 4-2 in Quad 1 games. We're also 4-2 in Quad 2 games. Our Quad 3 loss is Oregon State, but their split this week improved them from #90 to #78 NET... just 3 spots away from Q2 and that no longer looking like much of a blemish on the resume.

This week, Cal is a Q3 game and Stanford is a Q1 game.

Today's games (Monday, 2/3) we care about:

Prairie View A&M is at Alabama A&M (6:30pm, no tv). Good chance at a road win, which would set up Saturday's game with TX Southern as a battle for 1st place in the SWAC.

Kansas hosts Texas (7pm, ESPN). UT has been playing much better lately and is back in the bubble conversation. KU hasn't missed a beat with the suspensions.

Sacramento State hosts Idaho (8:05pm, no tv). Sac State had a bad week last week. Horrible on the road. But this is at home where they've been good & should roll.
 
I took a look at current RPI to see just how much it differs from NET. It's significant.

Here's just the Pac-12:

Arizona: #8 NET / #17 RPI
Colorado: #17 / #16
Oregon: #18 / #11
Stanford: #23 / #52
USC: #45 / #25
Washington: #53 / #81
Arizona State: #57 / #46
Oregon State: #78 / #120
Utah: #81 / #74
Washington State: #109 / #81
UCLA: #110 / #127
Cal: #146 / #107

I actually think RPI may have been a more accurate representation of these teams based on what they've done so far.

I'm also finding myself coming around to the way Jay Bilas looks at things. If we want the best possible tournament, focus on who a team beat more than worrying so much about their bad losses. If you have beaten a team that's a top 4 seed, I'll choose you on the bubble over a team with a better record that didn't beat anyone notable and has a lot of "quality" wins over NIT level teams. And I certainly don't give much credit for losing to good teams (in CU's case, anyone could get blown out at Kansas and Arizona so who cares that they were on the schedule).
 
Buffnik said:
I took a look at current RPI to see just how much it differs from NET. It's significant.

Here's just the Pac-12:

Arizona: #8 NET / #17 RPI
Colorado: #17 / #16
Oregon: #18 / #11
Stanford: #23 / #52
USC: #45 / #25
Washington: #53 / #81
Arizona State: #57 / #46
Oregon State: #78 / #120
Utah: #81 / #74
Washington State: #109 / #81
UCLA: #110 / #127
Cal: #146 / #107

I actually think RPI may have been a more accurate representation of these teams based on what they've done so far.

I'm also finding myself coming around to the way Jay Bilas looks at things. If we want the best possible tournament, focus on who a team beat more than worrying so much about their bad losses. If you have beaten a team that's a top 4 seed, I'll choose you on the bubble over a team with a better record that didn't beat anyone notable and has a lot of "quality" wins over NIT level teams. And I certainly don't give much credit for losing to good teams (in CU's case, anyone could get blown out at Kansas and Arizona so who cares that they were on the schedule).
Click to expand...
I prefer the current method. I dont wamt teams in the tournament who are 3 games over .500 but beat 2 top ten teams.
 
Medford M. said:
I prefer the current method. I dont wamt teams in the tournament who are 3 games over .500 but beat 2 top ten teams.
Click to expand...
They're both bad on that, but NET may be worse this year. NET is loving every B1G team that has a winning record. Hell, 11-10 Minnesota is at #44.
 
Medford M. said:
I prefer the current method. I dont wamt teams in the tournament who are 3 games over .500 but beat 2 top ten teams.
Click to expand...
Disagree. I’d much rather a team that’s shown it can beat a top 10 team and cause more madness than some team that’s won a bunch against worse opponents and can’t pull an upset.

Edit: but like Buffnik said, don’t reward teams for getting a loss to really good teams. Anyone can schedule a team and get blown out. Win percentage vs top teams should matter.
 
Ruckus said:
Disagree. I’d much rather a team that’s shown it can beat a top 10 team and cause more madness than some team that’s won a bunch against worse opponents and can’t pull an upset.

Edit: but like Buffnik said, don’t reward teams for getting a loss to really good teams. Anyone can schedule a team and get blown out. Win percentage vs top teams should matter.
Click to expand...
I want teams in that have proven they can win multiple games in a row. 25+ win teams get my benefit of the doubt if their NET is halfway decent.
 
Buffnik said:
I took a look at current RPI to see just how much it differs from NET. It's significant.

Here's just the Pac-12:

Arizona: #8 NET / #17 RPI
Colorado: #17 / #16
Oregon: #18 / #11
Stanford: #23 / #52
USC: #45 / #25
Washington: #53 / #81
Arizona State: #57 / #46
Oregon State: #78 / #120
Utah: #81 / #74
Washington State: #109 / #81
UCLA: #110 / #127
Cal: #146 / #107

I actually think RPI may have been a more accurate representation of these teams based on what they've done so far.

I'm also finding myself coming around to the way Jay Bilas looks at things. If we want the best possible tournament, focus on who a team beat more than worrying so much about their bad losses. If you have beaten a team that's a top 4 seed, I'll choose you on the bubble over a team with a better record that didn't beat anyone notable and has a lot of "quality" wins over NIT level teams. And I certainly don't give much credit for losing to good teams (in CU's case, anyone could get blown out at Kansas and Arizona so who cares that they were on the schedule).
Click to expand...

The issue with this is it can punish good teams that didn’t get a chance to play those top teams. If we’re picking between teams from major conferences, absolutely, show me you can beat top teams. But everyone knows high major teams won’t schedule good Mid-Majors. Gonzaga had to be great for like 10 straight years before they started getting high majors to play them regularly.
 
torerobuff said:
The issue with this is it can punish good teams that didn’t get a chance to play those top teams. If we’re picking between teams from major conferences, absolutely, show me you can beat top teams. But everyone knows high major teams won’t schedule good Mid-Majors. Gonzaga had to be great for like 10 straight years before they started getting high majors to play them regularly.
Click to expand...
They get chances, for the most part. For example, we've got Saint Mary's this year. They're good. They're always good. Sitting at 19-5 with some good wins but no great wins. They also lost to both Cal and ASU. I can't put them in for that even though I expect them to have 25+ wins once the WCC tourney is done.
 
Yesterday's games: Sac State lost (they've fallen apart). PV A&M won and is now 1st place SWAC. KU pulled away late to beat UT.

Today, 2/4, games we care about:

CSU at Fresno State (7pm, CBSSN). Rammies have built a 16-8 record and could actually end up Top 75 NET for another Q1 win on our resume.

Wyoming hosts Boise State (8pm, no tv). Pokes really suck this year, but they did win their last game. Stranger things have happened than them getting a win tonight.
 
CSU is favored in this one which makes sense because they beat Fresno St by 20 points at Fort Collins.
However Fresno St is going to be a lot tougher at home. Fresno St put a challenge to San Diego St. It will be a tough one for the lammies to pull off.
 
The At-large bids end at the #12 seeds. The gap between #12 and #13 seeds is the biggest between any two adjacent seeds; ergo, the probability of winning in round 1 gets the biggest jump when you go from a #5 to a #4.

In any case, winning out should net us a #2 seed, so whatever.
 
Robert Sorell said:
The At-large bids end at the #12 seeds. The gap between #12 and #13 seeds is the biggest between any two adjacent seeds; ergo, the probability of winning in round 1 gets the biggest jump when you go from a #5 to a #4.

In any case, winning out should net us a #2 seed, so whatever.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that also makes the #13 line the best of the mid-major champs from the 1-bid leagues. That's a tough game against a team that is very accustomed to winning and enters the tournament with a ton of confidence. I'll take the 5 seed. Especially since I'd much rather go through a 4 than a 3 to make the Sweet 16.
 
Buffnik said:
Yes, but that also makes the #13 line the best of the mid-major champs from the 1-bid leagues. That's a tough game against a team that is very accustomed to winning and enters the tournament with a ton of confidence. I'll take the 5 seed. Especially since I'd much rather go through a 4 than a 3 to make the Sweet 16.
Click to expand...
Sure, #5 > #6, but still #4 > #5

From this dataset of 34 years of tourney results:

Chance of going to Sweet 16
#1 = 85.3%
#2 = 62.5%
#3 = 50.7%
#4 = 46.3%
#5 = 33.8%
#6 = 31.6%

That's a teeny jump from 5 to 6, and a sizeable jump from 5 to 4.

#5's won 51% of their games in the second round (proper second round, not counting play-in round as 1), while 59% of #4's won their second round games.

The gap really comes from #4's winning their first round game 79% of the time compared to 65% for #5's

Meanwhile #6's win 50% of their second rounders, very similar to the #5's
 
Robert Sorell said:
Sure, #5 > #6, but still #4 > #5

From this dataset of 34 years of tourney results:

Chance of going to Sweet 16
#1 = 85.3%
#2 = 62.5%
#3 = 50.7%
#4 = 46.3%
#5 = 33.8%
#6 = 31.6%

That's a teeny jump from 5 to 6, and a sizeable jump from 5 to 4.

#5's won 51% of their games in the second round (proper second round, not counting play-in round as 1), while 59% of #4's won their second round games.

The gap really comes from #4's winning their first round game 79% of the time compared to 65% for #5's

Meanwhile #6's win 50% of their second rounders, very similar to the #5's
Click to expand...
Which was my entire point.

Folks were worried about a 5-seed because of the rep it has and were saying they would prefer a 6-seed. I posted the data showing that is wrong - 5 is better.

And then I finished my post by saying that we'd much rather have a 4 or 3 because those seed matchups are very friendly.
 
Buffnik said:
Which was my entire point.

Folks were worried about a 5-seed because of the rep it has and were saying they would prefer a 6-seed. I posted the data showing that is wrong - 5 is better.

And then I finished my post by saying that we'd much rather have a 4 or 3 because those seed matchups are very friendly.
Click to expand...

I think we need to worry about what we do-We go 7-1 down the stretch and win a game or two in Vegas we're a 3 or 4 seed. Its that simple.
 
Yesterday: CSU got a nice little road win. WYO almost pulled it off, but remembered in crunch time that they suck.

Toady, Wednesday 2/,5, games we care about:

Clemson at Virginia (5pm, ACCN). First team to 60 wins. UVA favored by 8 even though they can't shoot. Nice to have the #1 defense in the country.

Northern Iowa at Valparaiso (6pm, ESPN+). Would be a solid conference road win. UNI's knocking on the door to crack the Top 25.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top