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!
Pac-12 in the NIT & CBI (Congrats to Stanford)
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
Az has 4 top 50 (3 top 30) guys coming in. Rivals ranks Ucla as #10 class
http://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1303590
http://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1303590
MrFrumpylane
Well-Known Member
Washington down by 2 with less than a minute left. Good game.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
This looks like a game between two NIT teams :lol:
I'm pretty sure we get Stanford, Cal and the Oregon schools once each next year.I'm not sure which one is the home series though. That'll set up six games against the bottom-feeders (USC, Utah, and ASU) bit we'll also catch UCLA and Arizona and Washington on the home and home.
I know most think Wroten is gone, but I think he can easily double his money in his first contract if he comes back another year. Very talented, and still very raw...
Neither he nor Ross would play significant minutes in the NBA next year at this point. Still glaring weaknesses and lack of consistency.
It will be an interesting couple of weeks until we know. Go Stanford, win the NIT and represent.
Hopefully we see a much improved Pac next year...
Neither he nor Ross would play significant minutes in the NBA next year at this point. Still glaring weaknesses and lack of consistency.
It will be an interesting couple of weeks until we know. Go Stanford, win the NIT and represent.
Hopefully we see a much improved Pac next year...
SECOBuffsFan
Active Member
Good bye Washington
MattRob is correct. I think -- THINK -- that we have the Oregons on the road and the Bay Area coming here.
I'm not saying they suck by any means. At the same time I also think the program was a lot more about Lute than any kind of Arizona magic. The last five years they have done well but again a lot of that is carry over from the Lute era.
They have and will win a lot of games, They are also not a Kentucky, UNC, Duke, Kansas. You put it there yourself, all these years with high rankings and expectations and the have one (1) national championship. They also have a lot of years that their fans expected more and they didn't get there. Somehow they always tend to be on the short end when the headline includes the word "upset."
I guess I could have been clearer, they are a basketball school. They are also a school that somehow never meets the expectations that they put out there.
When they start winning the tourney more than one time despite always being there then I will give them respect.
When you're wrong, just concede the point. It's okay, the sky won't fall. Try it . . . just once.
That sets up pretty well then. If Cunningham leaves, the Oregon schools are definitely weaker and I'd rather catch them on the road.
You can say that say just about any school though, barring only a few and primarily because of location and fan support. Where would Duke be without Coach K? Indiana without Knight? CU without Mac (football)? UDub without James (again, football)? The list goes on an on. Some schools will have success because at some point some coach raised the bar and now they are elite (or were). It's similar to how Boyle is building something here. We don't have really any bball history. Expectations were low before Boyle and when I was a student I remember buying a ticket day of for a bball game for $2 5 minutes before tipoff. Boyle is setting the expectation for 20+ wins a season and an NIT birth at a minimum, with the hope that CU becomes a perennial bubble team.
Will Duke be an also-ran without Coach K? Perhaps. They were before Coach K. OU football was after Switzer left and until Stoops came along. UT didn't win a MNC until Brown came along, and even then he needed one of CFBs GOATs at QB to win it for him.
Unless you are a coach at a few schools an NCAA championship or MNC is damn near impossible, and even at those schools its ridiculously hard. Heck, I think last year's Bama team was better than the one that won the MNC this year and even Saban said so as well. If Richardson's fumble goes out of bounds in the '10 Iron Bowl they win it going away by 10+ and play in the SECCG and UO in the MNC. Didn't happen that way. Luck is still a factor, even for the elite teams (more so in CFB than BB, but the point remains; which teams you draw in the NCAA tourney can impact how easy it is to get to the final 4). How many schools have a legit shot at winning the NCAA tourney or the MNC? 6? 7? Most of those teams are there because of great coaching, great history, great recruiting and are in a prime location.
Where was Kentucky after Pitino left? Where was Bama before Saban? I'm not saying Arizona is among the super elite teams, but 20+ years of damn good history, a national championship, numerous championships (both regular and pac10) have made Arizona one of the teams that CU has to go through to become a Pac-12 power. We can't talk about CU becoming a national power in BB unless we finish top 3 year in and year out with Arizona and UCLA (who hasn't done much in a while, but you can't say they will be down indefinitely) in the Pac12 with the order being mixed up. It'll be good for us and good for the conference.
The conference needs UCLA and Arizona to be good. Sounds stupid, but the Big12 got no respect for when CU and NU sucked wind in the North. KSU made a good run and when they went back to sucking it wasn't good for the Big 12 rep either. When Mizzou and KU were good no one cared because they were never perceived at as national powers, even when they were both ranked what #2 and #3?
Last edited:
:lol:
Stretch goals, my friend.
We've never won 20+ in 3 straight years, never won 25, and only been to the tourney like 3 times in the past 20 years.
I want people to be excited. We should be. We're building something great here. But we're not at a point where having a season like Stanford did this year shouldn't be seen as a solid success.
Yeah but now we have Tad.
And everyone here is glad for that but keep things realistic. As young as we're going to be next year, I'd hate to see the team struggle to live up to unrealistic expectations and set the whole thing back.
BuffNut99
Club Member
Washington State leads Pitt 1-0 in the CBI finals (best two of three format), game 2 tonight
Possibly the most inexplicable single thing in sports, the CBI final format. Yes, lets have a best two out of three format to decide a champion, when no other hardware in the sport (at the college level) is decided in such fashion.
Possibly the most inexplicable single thing in sports, the CBI final format. Yes, lets have a best two out of three format to decide a champion, when no other hardware in the sport (at the college level) is decided in such fashion.
yeah I think it is pretty stupid as well. Good luck to Washington State.
Once you've been there like UofA you can have goals like you want Creatini. To clarify, a high seed in the NIT, at the minimum, is what we should expect. If we re-load this year and go to the tourney it shows how incredible of a job Boyle is doing and expectations can be raised. However, if we get a #1 or #2 seed in the NIT that'd be good, not great, but shows we are a bubble type of team.
Let's not pretend as if we are UNC or KU or UK hoops here just yet and an NCAA bid is automatic (even though it hasn't been the case for them). Let's make a sweet 16 or elite 8 run as a goal. Let's not pretend we are in the same breadth as even UCLA or even UofA in BB. We did well. We exceeded expectations. We have great facilities. We have a great coach. We have a phenomenal student section. Boyle is recruiting incredibly well, but so are other Pac-12 teams. Top 4 finish in the Pac12 regular season and tourney is what we should have as a goal. Let's not act as KU fans a few years ago did in football and think we are superior to teams that have tradition and excellence because of 1 or 2 great seasons. Talk is cheap and we need to sustain our success. We aren't a national team until we are a power in our conference year in and year out.
Show me some titles, their fans act like they have a whole gym full of them.
Concede the point, they are good but certainly not elite like you make them sound. And most of their success was thanks to Lute, Lute is gone. Lets see how their future goes.
You notice I didn't mention Indiana in the post, they are a similar situation to Arizona, although probably long term more serious about BB.
Arizona is a very good program, they act like they are a great program. Great programs are programs that win multiple NCs, Zona isn't one of those. Kentucky won NCs before Pitino and will likely win NCs in the future. Good question about Duke after coach K but right now they have him and they have multiple banners. You mention Bama and coach Saban, don't forget some dude named Bryant, again multiple NCs with multiple coaches.
I agree that it is in the best interest of the PAC to have multiple programs being successful and UCLA and Arizona are the most recognizable (along with USC which is in shambles right now in BB.) I just don't confuse Arizona with Carolina. Even Florida has more success in BB than Arizona has in terms of titles and they are a classic football school.
Important for the Buffs is that the PAC doesn't have a dominant type team right now. There is no Kansas standing in the way of winning the regular season championship, or Kentucky in the SEC. It isn't like the Big X with 4 or 5 top 25 teams standing in the way. Other teams are bringing in talent and nobody is going to give it away but if Tad can keep the momentum going CU can establish itself as a contender for the top of this conference, with or without Arizona there.
Not including this season:
In the history of the NCAA (going back to 1939) there are only a handful of programs with more than 2 championships:
UCLA - 11
Kentucky - 7
Indiana - 5
North Carolina - 5
Duke - 4
Connecticut - 3
Kansas - 3
7 others with 2 (Cincinnati, Florida, Louisville, Michigan State, NC State, Oklahoma State, San Francisco)
There are some great programs that only have 1 (Arizona, Arkansas, Georgetown, Ohio State, Syracuse).
There are also a number of programs with 1 that make you go "huh?" (CCNY, Holy Cross, La Salle, Loyola-Chicago, UTEP/Texas Western).
Another way to look at dominance is the number of Final Four appearances.
18 - North Carolina and UCLA
15 - Duke and Kentucky
14 - Kansas
11 - Ohio State
9 - Louisville
8 - Indiana and Michigan State
6 - Arkansas, Cincinnati, Michigan and Oklahoma State
5 - Georgetown, Houston and Illinois
4 - Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas State, LSU, Oklahoma, Syracuse, UNLV, Utah, Villanova
3 - Cal, Iowa, Marquette, Memphis, NC State, San Francisco, Texas
Then a bunch more with either 2 (including COLORADO) or 1 appearance.
In the history of the NCAA (going back to 1939) there are only a handful of programs with more than 2 championships:
UCLA - 11
Kentucky - 7
Indiana - 5
North Carolina - 5
Duke - 4
Connecticut - 3
Kansas - 3
7 others with 2 (Cincinnati, Florida, Louisville, Michigan State, NC State, Oklahoma State, San Francisco)
There are some great programs that only have 1 (Arizona, Arkansas, Georgetown, Ohio State, Syracuse).
There are also a number of programs with 1 that make you go "huh?" (CCNY, Holy Cross, La Salle, Loyola-Chicago, UTEP/Texas Western).
Another way to look at dominance is the number of Final Four appearances.
18 - North Carolina and UCLA
15 - Duke and Kentucky
14 - Kansas
11 - Ohio State
9 - Louisville
8 - Indiana and Michigan State
6 - Arkansas, Cincinnati, Michigan and Oklahoma State
5 - Georgetown, Houston and Illinois
4 - Arizona, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas State, LSU, Oklahoma, Syracuse, UNLV, Utah, Villanova
3 - Cal, Iowa, Marquette, Memphis, NC State, San Francisco, Texas
Then a bunch more with either 2 (including COLORADO) or 1 appearance.
The criteria is difficult to meet but some schools meet it. Multiple titles with a reasonable probability of getting more, not just win a bunch of games and get one title.
The word great gets thrown around much to easily, very good is very good but it isn't great.