Official 2016 Bubble Watch Thread

[Buffnik]

I decided to delay this for the current season and just focus on the CU RPI Watch until these last couple weeks. Now we're into the real bubble time.

First a couple points about RPI and how that factors in.

Since the 1999-2000 seasons, here's how good of a guide RPI is (Syracuse SB Nation Site):

A Top-50 RPI Doesn't Guarantee an NCAA Tournament Bid, But It's Close

• Since the 1999-2000 season, just 70 teams with a top-50 RPI come Selection Sunday have missed the NCAA Tournament. That's just nine percent of all teams in that stretch with a top-50 RPI, or an average of 4.4 teams per season missing.
• All top-50 profiles were also not created equal. Those top-50 teams that have been left out were largely (67 percent) rated 41-50.
• Some of the more notable exceptions to that theory, however: 2006 Missouri State (21), 2015 Colorado State (29), 2007 Air Force (30) and 2006 Hofstra (30). Those four teams have something in common, however... all in non-power leagues.
• Just 36 percent of the top-50 RPI teams left out of the NCAAs were in a power conference (meaning 64 percent were in non-power leagues).
• Strength of schedule (SOS) is always seen as the add-on to RPI in a team's resume. And with good reason. While a top-50 RPI gets you into the Dance at a pretty high rate, 41-percent of those top-50 RPI teams left out also had a top-50 SOS.
• In short, Top 50 RPI pretty much means the team is in, especially if the team is from a Power 6 conference and had a Top 50 SOS.

The bracketologist I'm going to focus on is 1-3-1 Sports. It's been the 2nd best overall with little variance over the past 4 years according to Bracket Matrix.

1-3-1 most recent posting of its projections was on 2/19. Here's how they had it (1-3-1 Blog):

The 1 Seeds: Villanova, Kansas, Virginia, Xavier
The 2 Seeds: Oklahoma, North Carolina, Miami (FL), Michigan State
The 3 Seeds: Iowa, Maryland, Oregon, Duke
The 4 Seeds: Kentucky, West Virginia, Dayton, Arizona
The 5 Seeds: Purdue, Iowa State, Utah, Notre Dame
The 6 Seeds: USC, Texas, Texas A&M, Baylor
The 7 Seeds: Indiana, California, St. Joseph’s, Connecticut
The 8 Seeds: Colorado, Providence, Florida, Syracuse
The 9 Seeds: South Carolina, Pittsburgh, Wichita State, Texas Tech
The 10 Seeds: Seton Hall, Wisconsin, Michigan, VCU
The 11 Seeds: Monmouth, Cincinnati, Gonzaga, Oregon State, Alabama
The 12 Seeds: Butler, St. Mary’s, San Diego State, Valparaiso, Arkansas-Little Rock
The 13 Seeds: Chattanooga, Akron, IPFW, Stony Brook
The 14 Seeds: Yale, Hawaii, NC-Wilmington, UAB
The 15 Seeds: Belmont, Stephen F. Austin, New Mexico State, Montana
The 16 Seeds: NC-Asheville, North Florida, Bucknell, Hampton, Wagner, Texas Southern
—————————————————————-

BUBBLE ACTION
Last Four In: Oregon State, Alabama, Butler, St. Mary’s
First Four Out: George Washington, Florida State, Temple, LSU
Next Four Out: Tulsa, Washington, Vanderbilt, Ohio State
—————————————————————-

CONFERENCE BREAKDOWN
ACC (7), Pac-12 (7), Big Ten (7), Big 12 (7), Big East (5), SEC (5), Atlantic 10 (3), American (2), West Coast (2)

ACC – Virginia, North Carolina, Miami (FL), Duke, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pittsburgh
America East – Stony Brook
American – Connecticut, Cincinnati
Atlantic 10 – Dayton, St. Joseph’s, VCU
Atlantic Sun – North Florida
Big 12 – Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Iowa State, Texas, Baylor, Texas Tech
Big East – Villanova, Xavier, Providence, Seton Hall, Butler
Big Sky – Montana
Big South – NC-Asheville
Big Ten – Michigan State, Iowa, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana, Wisconsin, Michigan
Big West – Hawaii
Colonial – NC-Wilmington
Conference USA – UAB
Horizon – Valparaiso
Ivy – Yale
MAAC – Monmouth
MAC – Akron
MEAC – Hampton
Missouri Valley – Wichita State
Mountain West – San Diego State
Northeast – Wagner
Ohio Valley – Belmont
Pac-12 – Oregon, Arizona, Utah, USC, California, Colorado, Oregon State
Patriot – Bucknell
SEC – Kentucky, Texas A&M, Florida, South Carolina, Alabama
Southern – Chattanooga
Southland – Stephen F. Austin
Summit – IPFW
Sun Belt – Arkansas-Little Rock
SWAC – Texas Southern
WAC – New Mexico State
WCC – Gonzaga, St. Mary’s

You'll notice that's 32 automatic Dance Cards, so we're looking for the 36 at-large teams for this thread. Got to watch some of those 1-bid leagues that have a frontrunner with a great RPI. Conference tourneys always result in a couple bid stealers where that regular season champ was so strong in its RPI that it got an at-large despite losing its tourney.

Look out for Chattanooga (RPI 37, Southern Conf), Akron (RPI 42, MAC), Arkansas-Little Rock (RPI 43, Sun Belt), Monmouth (RPI 46, MAAC), South Dakota State (RPI 47, Summit), San Diego State (RPI 50, MWC), Wichita State (RPI 51, MVC) and Stony Brook (RPI 52, America East). If you're cheering for a bubble team to get in, any of those teams in its conference tourney could really tighten that bubble by turning a 1-bid league into a 2-bid league. Also could happen if a team was an upset winner of the WCC tourney and both Gonzaga & St. Mary's still got at-large bids. But as we saw with CSU last year, if the conference isn't rated highly we'll sometimes see the committee penalize a worthy conference at-large by having its tourney winner steal the bid of the the lowest rated conference at-large that would have otherwise made it in rather than the committee rewarding the conference with more than its share of bids based on conference strength.

Further posts in this thread will be game results of bubble teams and updates to the 1-3-1 predictions (or predictions of other bracketologists).

 

[Buffnik]

Alabama took a very bad loss today for its bubble hopes. Dropped to RPI 45 with a home loss to Mississippi State. Just can't do that as a bubble team this time of year.

Syracuse also took a big hit, losing at home to Pitt and dropping to 55. (While Pitt jumped to 34 -- great day for them.)

Florida State losing at VA Tech was a killer, dropping them to #74.

Cincinnati got a much-needed home win over UConn, moving up to #57 and back into the discussion.

LSU right now is losing at Tennessee. Bubble team based on conference record and having the best player in the nation everyone would love to see play in the Tourney... but RPI 81 coming in and can't afford losses (especially to teams outside the Top 100).

 

[L Buff]

Didn't Syracuse voluntarily disqualify themselves from the post-season? Why are they listed?

 

[Buffnik]

Didn't Syracuse voluntarily disqualify themselves from the post-season? Why are they listed?

Louisville. Syracuse's penalty was Boeheim not being able to coach about half the season and losing scholarships, but I don't think there's a post-season ban.

 

[Buffnik]

Another result with major Bubble implications today is Butler losing at Villanova. Obviously no shame in that loss -- everyone in the country might have lost that game -- but when you're on the "Last 4 In" line, it's a huge missed opportunity and certainly doesn't help.

 

[Buffnik]

Kansas State fell at home to Kansas, dropping KSU to RPI 72. They're actually a better team than many that will make the Dance, I think. But they did nothing in the non-con and in the Big 12 they've shown themselves to be just good enough to play close and lose.

 

[Buffnik]

Ohio State win at Nebraska moves them to 72. Still quite a bit of work to do, but needed that to stay near the Bubble.

 

[Buffnik]

Washington just won at home over Stanford. Still alive on the Bubble at 70.

 

[ZandiBuff]

If we finish around 42 in RPI - last projection I saw - how bad are these last few loses going to look to a selection committee?

Is it like football where losing late is worse than losing early?

At this point I'd rather go to the NIT. This team will get crushed by any legitimate tourney team

 

[cnbuff410]

If we finish around 42 in RPI - last projection I saw - how bad are these last few loses going to look to a selection committee?

Is it like football where losing late is worse than losing early?

At this point I'd rather go to the NIT. This team will get crushed by any legitimate tourney team

Stop, just stop, you should never ever rather go to NIT.

 

[Chautauqua]

Like Buffnik said, we are still in great shape. No one expected us to win a game in LA this weekend and we almost stole one from U$C. There are plenty of bubble teams across the country that dropped critical games this past week, many of them are in a much more precarious position than the Buffs.

Expect this team to come out focused and ready next Wednesday with a huge opportunity at the Keg against Arizona. If you don't like what you saw this past week in LA, do something about it by showing up to the game and making some noise for the Buffs.

 

[MtnBuff]

I'm less worried about the loss (losses) than I am about how they lost.

I disagree with the post above about this team not having talent, it does. It may not be the best combination but the talent is there. This team should not be losing to USC and getting blown out by UCLA.

I love Tad as a coach but just like everyone else he has his weaknesses, He needs to get better at game day coaching, he needs to figure out how to stop these extended dead periods when we don't score. He needs to figure out how to get a bucket when we absolutely need one.

 

[Goose]

I disagree with the post above about this team not having talent, it does. It may not be the best combination but the talent is there. This team should not be losing to USC and getting blown out by UCLA.

Mtn, I promise, this rant isn't directed at you directly but more at the constant number of posts that are saying similar things, so I apologize for the tone now.

HOLY ****, WHAT BIZARRE WORLD ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING IN?!?

USC is the #39 (KenPom) team in the nation. They were undefeated at home until yesterday when they lost to #27 Utah. Their "worst" loss is on the road to ASU. They are 5-7 against adjusted top 100 teams (BTW, CU is 3-9). They have five guys who are averaging double digits in scoring and they're still probably going to finish as a 6 or 7 seed.

UCLA is the #52 team in the nation. They've lost to Washington State and Wake Forest, but also beaten Kentucky, Gonzaga and Arizona.

As for talent, I want to know what you guys are talking about. Other than Josh, there is not one player on CU's team that would start on either USC or UCLA. Wes would get bench minutes on both teams. No one else. Someone's going to say King, but do you know how many athletic swingmen UCLA and USC have? And that theirs actually play defense?

Guys, Colorado is building talent. Do we have more talent than most of the teams that CU has had in the past? Abso-****ing-lutely. Do we have what anyone would consider a "talented" team in the P12? God no. There's a reason we were picked to be 7th in the P12 in the preseason poll by coaches and anywhere from 7th to 9th by everyone else.

Finally, I don't have an updated stat, but prior to this past week, top 6 teams in the P12 were 183-6 at home this year. After Utah beat USC last night, they now have 7 losses. Winning on the road is hard. There's a reason @YngC wrote an article saying to not expect any wins this last week and that it wasn't worthy of a freakout when it happened.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

To piggyback off of what Goose just said, Palm with CBS still has us slotted as an 8seed. We were EXPECTED to lose both of those games last week. Losing them both did not change our outlook because that is what was supposed to happen.

I think we missed a huge opportunity at USC. I was frustrated by that game, like everyone else. UCLA has been a problem for us. Not just MBB, but all sports at CU. I think since joining the conference we have 2 wins over UCLA total across all programs. The Bruins are highly disfunctional, and they are incredibly inconsistent, but they are hugely talented. That roster is loaded from top to bottom, and when they play together and things go their way, we get games like we did Saturday night.

 

[Goose]

To piggyback off of what Goose just said, Palm with CBS still has us slotted as an 8seed. We were EXPECTED to lose both of those games last week. Losing them both did not change our outlook because that is what was supposed to happen.

I think we missed a huge opportunity at USC. I was frustrated by that game, like everyone else. UCLA has been a problem for us. Not just MBB, but all sports at CU. I think since joining the conference we have 2 wins over UCLA total across all programs. The Bruins are highly disfunctional, and they are incredibly inconsistent, but they are hugely talented. That roster is loaded from top to bottom, and when they play together and things go their way, we get games like we did Saturday night.

I had hope against UCLA mainly because they're a team that does not shoot a lot of 3 pointers. They were 341st in the nation at Three point attempts per FG attempt heading in to the game. They shoot a lot of 2 pointers and we had the second best 2 pt defense in the conference heading into the game. So naturally they shot 20 threes and hit them at a 55% clip. our perimeter D has to pick up.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

I had hope against UCLA mainly because they're a team that does not shoot a lot of 3 pointers. They were 341st in the nation at Three point attempts per FG attempt heading in to the game. They shoot a lot of 2 pointers and we had the second best 2 pt defense in the conference heading into the game. So naturally they shot 20 threes and hit them at a 55% clip. our perimeter D has to pick up.

They couldn't miss. It didn't matter who was shooting or from where. There are just nights like that. I thought we played decently on D for stretches of that game, but it didn't matter. Couldn't stop them from scoring. Just can't let that turn into a string of games.

 

[Buffnik]

1-3-1 still has the Buffs as an 8 seed today. http://131sports.com/

 

[ZandiBuff]

Stop, just stop, you should never ever rather go to NIT.

Why? Finishing in the top 4 5 years ago did good for us. How'd getting reamed by Pitt help us out?

As a senior, would you rather your last game be the championship game of the NIT (win or lose) or a 45 point loss to a team that gets killed in their next game in the NCAA?

 

[Darth Snow]

Omg

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

Why? Finishing in the top 4 5 years ago did good for us. How'd getting reamed by Pitt help us out?

As a senior, would you rather your last game be the championship game of the NIT (win or lose) or a 45 point loss to a team that gets killed in their next game in the NCAA?

Even if you win the NIT, that means you are #65 overall.

ALWAYS better to go to the dance. Always.

 

[ZandiBuff]

Mtn, I promise, this rant isn't directed at you directly but more at the constant number of posts that are saying similar things, so I apologize for the tone now.

HOLY ****, WHAT BIZARRE WORLD ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING IN?!?

You start with:
As for talent, I want to know what you guys are talking about. Other than Josh, there is not one player on CU's team that would start on either USC or UCLA. Wes would get bench minutes on both teams. No one else. Someone's going to say King, but do you know how many athletic swingmen UCLA and USC have? And that theirs actually play defense?

And then go to?
Guys, Colorado is building talent. Do we have more talent than most of the teams that CU has had in the past? Abso-****ing-lutely. Do we have what anyone would consider a "talented" team in the P12? God no. There's a reason we were picked to be 7th in the P12 in the preseason poll by coaches and anywhere from 7th to 9th by everyone else.

We have 2 3* guards and an unranked PF coming in. UCLA has 3 5* players in this class, U$C has a 4* guard, cal has a 4* guard, AZ has a 5* guard and a 4* PF. ASU has 2 4* players. Oregon 3 4* players. OSU has a 4* guard. Stanford has a 4* C.

Exactly WHO are we "building" talent over?

We are about to lose the single best player we've had since Chauncy and you think we're "building"? Sorry, this team isn't on an upward trajectory.

 

[Shldr2Shldr]

We have 2 3* guards and an unranked PF coming in. UCLA has 3 5* players in this class, U$C has a 4* guard, cal has a 4* guard, AZ has a 5* guard and a 4* PF. ASU has 2 4* players. Oregon 3 4* players. OSU has a 4* guard. Stanford has a 4* C.

Exactly WHO are we "building" talent over?

We are about to lose the single best player we've had since Chauncy and you think we're "building"? Sorry, this team isn't on an upward trajectory.

Alec Burks, Andre Roberson, and Spencer Dinwiddie are all just scrubs then...

 

[MtnBuff]

Mtn, I promise, this rant isn't directed at you directly but more at the constant number of posts that are saying similar things, so I apologize for the tone now.

HOLY ****, WHAT BIZARRE WORLD ARE YOU PEOPLE LIVING IN?!?

USC is the #39 (KenPom) team in the nation. They were undefeated at home until yesterday when they lost to #27 Utah. Their "worst" loss is on the road to ASU. They are 5-7 against adjusted top 100 teams (BTW, CU is 3-9). They have five guys who are averaging double digits in scoring and they're still probably going to finish as a 6 or 7 seed.

UCLA is the #52 team in the nation. They've lost to Washington State and Wake Forest, but also beaten Kentucky, Gonzaga and Arizona.

As for talent, I want to know what you guys are talking about. Other than Josh, there is not one player on CU's team that would start on either USC or UCLA. Wes would get bench minutes on both teams. No one else. Someone's going to say King, but do you know how many athletic swingmen UCLA and USC have? And that theirs actually play defense?

Guys, Colorado is building talent. Do we have more talent than most of the teams that CU has had in the past? Abso-****ing-lutely. Do we have what anyone would consider a "talented" team in the P12? God no. There's a reason we were picked to be 7th in the P12 in the preseason poll by coaches and anywhere from 7th to 9th by everyone else.

Finally, I don't have an updated stat, but prior to this past week, top 6 teams in the P12 were 183-6 at home this year. After Utah beat USC last night, they now have 7 losses. Winning on the road is hard. There's a reason @YngC wrote an article saying to not expect any wins this last week and that it wasn't worthy of a freakout when it happened.

Goose, no problem with the tone or content, I should have been clearer.

USC and UCLA sit in the middle of one of the most talent rich areas in the country for college basketball. Even when relatively down they keep pumping playing into the NBA, they have talent.

We are not entirely without talent either though. We have one of the best big men in the country and some conference statistical leaders.

When I stated we shouldn't be losing to USC it was in reference to a game that for much of the night we had a comfortable lead and dominated the game. Simple fact is that we went into one of our patented fold-O jobs and gave away a road win. That is why I stated that I was bothered by how we lost.

The next game against UCLA it looked like for the most part we didn't even bother to show up. Again they have talent but their talent isn't that great a factor. Going into this weekend they were behind us in confernce standings.

Your point about the home records in the conference is absolutely correct. This is a home league top to bottom. That is why when you have a chance, forget chance and say clear advantage of a 15 point lead late, against USC at their place you simply cannot blow it. Games like that are the difference between mediocre and top end in a league like ours and that isn't all about talent.

I am hoping that last weekend doesn't end up costing us a berth in the tourney, win the USC game and we would be excellent shape, now we will be at the edge of our seat most likely and we know how that has turned out in the past.

Beyond that I don't want to perpetually be a one game and done tourney team. Time to take the next step, last weekend makes me question how far we are from that potential step.

 

[ZandiBuff]

Alec Burks, Andre Roberson, and Spencer Dinwiddie are all just scrubs then...

Never said that. Just said J40 is the best since Chauncy.

Are any of those coming back next year? Or are we "building" talent with all of our 3* limited offer players?

Who recruited all of those players, BTW?

 

[Buffnik]

Even if you win the NIT, that means you are #65 overall.

ALWAYS better to go to the dance. Always.

#69, but point stands.

I can't imagine wanting to play in the NIT over the NCAA. Only an ignorant basketball fan would say that. It can certainly help a team get ready for the next season, but it rarely works out that way. Just look at Stanford. Dawkins is quickly becoming an NIT coaching legend. Does anyone give a sh!t?

 

[Buffnik]

Never said that. Just said J40 is the best since Chauncy.

Are any of those coming back next year? Or are we "building" talent with all of our 3* limited offer players?

Who recruited all of those players, BTW?

You keep thinking that Tad didn't recruit Dre or Spencer for some reason.

 

[MtnBuff]

You keep thinking that Tad didn't recruit Dre or Spencer for some reason.

Not only did Tad recruit those two but his best job may have been re-recruiting Burks who was by some reports out the door when Tad came in.

 

[ZandiBuff]

You keep thinking that Tad didn't recruit Dre or Spencer for some reason.

I always thought Dre was already in the class b4 Tad.

I stand corrected

 

[CVilleBuff]

We cannot have this debate every year. The NIT is great if you're CU circa March 2010 (we fell just short on a bid). If you aren't ascending and using it as a springboard to make future NCAA Tournaments, there is absolutely nothing good about fighting to be the 69th team in the nation. The exposure and prestige of the NCAA Tournament is enormous. It's not debatable. End of story. Just end it now.

 

[Buffnik]

I always thought Dre was already in the class b4 Tad.

I stand corrected

He was a spring signee. Coach A found him for CU. Tad had offered him previously for UNCo. When Tad took the CU job, iirc, Dre was either a verbal or a strong lean and needed to be closed.