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!

Pac-12 Preview by CBS Sports (Buffs #2)

Buffnik

Buffnik

Real name isn't Nik
Club Member
Junta Member
This is such a fantastic preview, that I almost didn't provide any copied text. It's worth reading the whole thing. They've got each panel member picking 1-12, a composite with a decent-length preview for every team, selections for all-conference teams, POTY, top newcomer, coach of the year (check that one out) and some stuff that even goes into metrics a bit when they discuss the Buffs and our obscenely high "Luck Factor" last season. Honestly, this might be the best conference preview I've seen... and not just because they agree with me on Colorado and parrot some of what I've said about Washington as the surprise team to look out for.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/eye-on-college-basketball/24755063/-15-college-basketball-conference-preview-pac-12

2. Colorado
After Arizona, there isn't another team that seems to be guaranteed to make the NCAA Tournament. The closest team to that lock status though is probably Colorado. Entering their fifth season under coach Tad Boyle, the Buffaloes have never won fewer than 21 games or had a conference record below .500 with him in charge. That shouldn't change this year, as the program returns all of its contributors outside of lead guard Dinwiddie, who went down with a torn ACL in January anyway, meaning the Buffs know how to play without him. Leading the charge will be the triumvirate of big man Josh Scott, wing Xavier Johnson, and guard Askia Booker. Scott is the toughest matchup of the three as an absolute load inside that rebounds well on both sides of the ball, blocks shots, and finishes efficiently around the rim and into the midrange. Booker is the antithesis of Scott, in that he's a frenetic, unpredictable player who is prone to turnovers and bad shot selection. However, he makes things happen on the floor for the Buffs, and can at least be counted on to create offense. Finally, Johnson is a big, solid two-way wing that can knock down shots both inside and out. This is the best threesome in the conference outside of Arizona, and they'll be joined by role players Wesley Gordon, Xavier Talton, and Jaron Hopkins. Things would have to go pretty south for this team to not win 20 games and head back to the NCAA Tournament, but crazier things have happened.

 
Doesn't Tad Boyle have a pretty long history at CU of consistently closing out games well, and isn't that how they calculate "luck factor" or at least a big part of it?
 
Darth Snow said:
Doesn't Tad Boyle have a pretty long history at CU of consistently closing out games well, and isn't that how they calculate "luck factor" or at least a big part of it?
Click to expand...

Follow up to your question, since we have some very knowledgeable stat geeks on AB -- does something like "free throw defense" go into the luck factor? I've read some previews where that's been talked about a lot in relation to ASU and how they are very unlikely to be as lucky this year on that.
 
wyobuff said:
Why is everyone so high on furd?
Click to expand...

They went to the Sweet 16 last year, have one great player returning, one really good player returning, and maybe the best recruiting class in program history coming in.

With a lot of pre-season ranks, guys look at "firepower" and "potential" since those things are sexy.

Put it another way, Stanford is much more likely to be playing in the NIT at the end of the season than CU is... and Stanford is also much more likely than CU to reach an Elite Eight.

CU lacks firepower. The Buffs aren't a sexy pick.
 
BehindEnemyLines said:
Yeah, and we said that last year. Look, I'm not really sold on his coaching ability, but they did okay in a do-or-die situation last year. Hard to ignore that.
Click to expand...

Can look at it that way, or as exceeding potential for two weeks in his tenure of 6 years and counting. Has Dawkins suddenly figured it out? Doubt it. Can Stanford Dance again? Absolutely. Can they also do stupid **** like lose to Wazzu? Absolutely.
 
CVilleBuff said:
Can look at it that way, or as exceeding potential for two weeks in his tenure of 6 years and counting. Has Dawkins suddenly figured it out? Doubt it. Can Stanford Dance again? Absolutely. Can they also do stupid **** like lose to Wazzu? Absolutely.
Click to expand...

It's kinda like Forrest's box of chocolates.
 
I honestly have a hard time finding more than 20 regular season wins for Stanford. OOC has UNLV neutral, Duke (or Temple if they lose to UNLV) neutral, @ BYU, @ Texas, UConn.

I see something like a 10-3 OOC and a 10-8 Pac12 record. That would get them in the Dance.
 
Last edited:
Buffnik said:
Follow up to your question, since we have some very knowledgeable stat geeks on AB -- does something like "free throw defense" go into the luck factor? I've read some previews where that's been talked about a lot in relation to ASU and how they are very unlikely to be as lucky this year on that.
Click to expand...

Not explicitly. It's just that we won more close games than expected. Straight from the horse's mouth:

Luck - A measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. It’s a Dean Oliver invention. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky).
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/ratings_glossary

Luck is a highly perceptual thing. You could say Ski's eurostep 3 was lucky. You could say losing a 1st rd pick to an ACL is unlucky.
 
Last edited:
BuffG said:
Not explicitly. It's just that we won more close games than expected. Straight from the horse's mouth:

Luck - A measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. It’s a Dean Oliver invention. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky).
http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/entry/ratings_glossary

Luck is a highly perceptual thing. You could say Ski's eurostep 3 was lucky. You could say losing a 1st rd pick to an ACL is unlucky.
Click to expand...

Yeah, well pretty sure losing our NBA PG for conference play made the season a gigantic net loss in the "luck" category, regardless of metrics showing us we grinded out a few wins to Dance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top