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

Yeah, you know, having Utah as a travel "partner" kind of sucks. Teams aren't worried about them, they're only worried about us.
 
Nor Cal Buff said:
Is that the same transformation that saw them lose to Cal by 38? They are terrible and a couple OK performances against some marginal teams at home doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Obviously they're a bad team. I think my posts and everyone else's above mine make that extraordinarily clear. No one's saying Utah is about to make a Sweet 16 run. However, they've improved since their game against CU. They've defeated Wazzu and ASU (by more than CU did), and lost to Washington by 4 and at Stanford by 3 (how did we do at Stanford?). For a team that didn't win a game against an NCAA opponent until Dec. 16th, and scored 33 on CU, that's progress.
 
Last edited:
They've improved, mostly because they've come together as a team and are buying in. If we don't take them seriously, that game in SLC is going to be a loss. Boyle's going to have to work some magic getting the guys up for that one.
 
Other Pac12 games tonight:

Washington @ Arizona State
Utah @ UCLA
Washington State @ Arizona

You figure Washington and UCLA should win with ease. Wazzu/Zona could be interesting, but Zona should get the W at home. At this point though, no result would surprise me much.
 
Everyone who was favored took care of business tonight.

UCLA beat Utah 76-49. Bruins now 11-9 (4-4) heading into our game against them on Saturday. Utes drop to 5-15 (2-6)

Washington 60-54 over ASU in Tempe. Huskies tied atop the Pac at 13-7 (6-2). Devils drop to 6-14 (2-6)

Arizona with an 85-61 win over Wazzu in Tucson. 'Cats stay alive in the race for 1st at 14-7 (5-3), Cougs drop to 11-9 (3-5).
 
It's good that the teams at the top are starting to separate. That's the only chance to see the conference get more than 2 bids.
 
Buffnik said:
It's good that the teams at the top are starting to separate. That's the only chance to see the conference get more than 2 bids.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and over the next couple weeks we'll see a couple teams currently atop the standings fall back a bit into a second tier. Four teams tied for 1st at 6-2 and two right behind at 5-3. Hard to say who it's going to be, but perhaps Oregon, Washington and Stanford fall back a little bit and CU, Cal and Arizona remain as the three teams right near the top.

Regardless, for right now we're halfway through a conference slate and our Buffs are tied atop the standings. What a ****ing great feeling this is. It got me thinking about times in past years when the Buffs have been in 1st (or anywhere near first) in the middle of a conference slate:

-Last year had that 3-0 start, but then lost 4 in a row and ultimately finished 5th.
-Buffs started 5-2 in the Big XII in '05-'06 and ultimately finished 9-7 (5th). Nice start and quality final conference result
-In '03/'04 the Buffs were a solid 10-6 (4th). Interestingly, they started off poorly and had a very strong end to the regular season.
-'02/03 had a 9-7 record (5th), with another ****** start (2-4) followed by a relatively strong finish.
-In '96/'97 the Buffs started 6-0 on their way to finishing 11-5 (2nd). So, this would be the answer. You have to go back to the days of Chauncey to find the last time CU was atop the conference standings beyond the first couple games of these respective seasons.
Pac-12 Standings


TEAMCONFOVERALL
California6-216-5
Oregon6-215-5
Colorado6-214-6
Washington6-213-7
Stanford5-315-5
Arizona5-314-7
UCLA4-411-9
Oregon State3-513-7
Washington State3-511-9
Arizona State2-66-14
Utah2-65-15
USC0-85-16
 
Tony Wrtoten with a big dunk last night over ASU's Jonathan Gilling

“That might have been the best dunk I’ve ever had,” he said. “I wasn’t even expecting that to happen. He just moved over and (I) just dunked on him.”

[video=youtube;bySoJ1F5lXE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bySoJ1F5lXE#![/video]
 
There are a couple other huge games this weekend aside from our own.

Washington @ Arizona tomorrow (5MT). 'Must-win' for 'Zona to stay alive in the Pac12 race.

Stanford at Cal, Sunday (630MT) If Cal wins, we'll start to see that separation taking place with Stanford falling a couple games back. On the flipside, a Stanford win would make things even messier than they already are.

Oregon State at Oregon could be interesting

Utah @ USC should be a pillow fight for the ages
 
Last edited:
Washington gets the 69-67 win in Tucson. Washington puts themselves in contention to seize control of the Pac at 7-2, Arizona drops to 5-4.
 
L Buff said:
Who do you all think we should be pulling for in the Cal-Stanford game? :huh:
Click to expand...

Hard to say. A Stanford win makes them even with us at 6-3 but keeps Cal at 6-3, but a Cal win puts the Bears at 7-2 with Washington. I'd say Stanford, because it keeps Washington as the only team ahead of us.
 
Oregon State played a heck of a game. Definitely impressed with how they played.

They were really good at getting turnovers against Oregon. Something that scares me against us.
 
btbuff said:
Oregon State played a heck of a game. Definitely impressed with how they played.

They were really good at getting turnovers against Oregon. Something that scares me against us.
Click to expand...

Exactly ... might be good to minimize Nate's minutes in that game. :huh:


In fairness ... he's not the only one with TO problems (especially yesterday) ... just seems to commit the most egregious ones.
 
L Buff said:
Exactly ... might be good to minimize Nate's minutes in that game. :huh:


In fairness ... he's not the only one with TO problems (especially yesterday) ... just seems to commit the most egregious ones.
Click to expand...

Carlon Brown has been our biggest turnover problem. Ski can get very sloppy with the ball, too.
 
L Buff said:
Exactly ... might be good to minimize Nate's minutes in that game. :huh:


In fairness ... he's not the only one with TO problems (especially yesterday) ... just seems to commit the most egregious ones.
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit unfair to say that Nate is at fault for many of the team's turnovers because he is bad, but really because he gets the most ball time. He usually brings the ball down the court, sets up plays, etc. I'm willing to bet that for eg. Roberson or SHT would turn the ball over a lot more if they had Nate's role.
 
MrFrumpylane said:
I think it's a bit unfair to say that Nate is at fault for many of the team's turnovers because he is bad, but really because he gets the most ball time. He usually brings the ball down the court, sets up plays, etc. I'm willing to bet that for eg. Roberson or SHT would turn the ball over a lot more if they had Nate's role.
Click to expand...

uhh, that comparison is clearly apples to oranges as dre and sht are not guards.... a better comparison is to brown, ski, spence, sharpe, chen and adams in regards of handling the ball...
 
shang said:
uhh, that comparison is clearly apples to oranges as dre and sht are not guards.... a better comparison is to brown, ski, spence, sharpe, chen and adams in regards of handling the ball...
Click to expand...

You're right, but my comparison still stands. It is exactly that by being a guard, you're going to get more ball time, meaning more opportunities to turn it over. Which is why I think it is a bit unfair to Nate's credit, because it is his role to have greater ball control risk.
 
Last edited:
MrFrumpylane said:
You're right, but my comparison still stands. It is exactly that by being a guard, you're going to get more ball time, meaning more opportunities to turn it over. Which is why I think it is a bit unfair to Nate's credit, because it is his role to have greater ball control risk.
Click to expand...

yes, totally in agreement w/ you on nate's role/status/ etc, but if we on the board are looking for alternatives to nate, then as listed before, lets look at guys like ski, spence, chen and sharpe, which i think all 4 were true pg's in high school.
 
Nate doesn't create a LOT of turnovers, Nate creates a lot of BAD turnovers. As in, unforced, badly timed, coach killing turnovers that have a disproportionate effect on the game.
 
Darth Snow said:
Nate doesn't create a LOT of turnovers, Nate creates a lot of BAD turnovers. As in, unforced, badly timed, coach killing turnovers that have a disproportionate effect on the game.
Click to expand...

Top of the playlist on Snow's iPad:

[video=youtube;jKd8PsfbwIM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKd8PsfbwIM&feature=related[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top