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!

WBB ranking

BeBe

Club Member
I decided this deserves it's own thread. Last week, CU WBB received a #25 ranking in the AP poll.... their first in a 5 or 6 years. Also started getting votes in the Coaches poll. The 12/24 AP poll is now out and has our Buffs at #23, up 2 spots. According to Brian Howeel tweet (@BrianHowell33), this week 35 out of the 40 voters have CU on their ballots when last week only 21 of 40 did. #LappeDays
 
According to the Media Guide for this season which I have downloaded, the last time CU was in the polls was January 14, 2008, when they were ranked 25th in the AP poll and not ranked in the Coaches' Poll. That was the season that Jackie McFarland led the team to the WNIT. They only went 5-11 in the Big 12, but got hot in the WNIT.

This team is getting noticed much earlier in the season, so I'm counting on going to the Dance. #LappeDays
 
Coaches poll out. Still not top 25 but we have moved up in the "receiving votes" category. Last week we were the "#32" if you don't stop counting at 25, with 13 points. This week we are "#27" with 34 points.
 
buffgal said:
According to the Media Guide for this season which I have downloaded, the last time CU was in the polls was January 14, 2008, when they were ranked 25th in the AP poll and not ranked in the Coaches' Poll. That was the season that Jackie McFarland led the team to the WNIT. They only went 5-11 in the Big 12, but got hot in the WNIT.

This team is getting noticed much earlier in the season, so I'm counting on going to the Dance. #LappeDays
Click to expand...

The 2008 team started out with non-conference wins over a good Wyoming team in Boulder and a great road victory at Vanderbilt. Unfortunately, they hit wall in Big 12 play. Jackie was great regardless of the win-loss record.

This season's team play's better defense than the 2008 version.
 
MarkW said:
The 2008 team started out with non-conference wins over a good Wyoming team in Boulder and a great road victory at Vanderbilt. Unfortunately, they hit wall in Big 12 play. Jackie was great regardless of the win-loss record.

This season's team play's better defense than the 2008 version.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. That team was pretty much all Jackie. This team is a TEAM in every sense of the word. I hope we get our injured/sick kids back soon.
 
PAC 12 has some brutaly tough competion in WBB but the B12 wasn't bad either. Ceal had a number of top 10 type teams and there is no reason that CU WBB can't be a significant name again.

If they can continue to sustain and build on this success it will not only be good for the WBB team but also for the entire athletic program. Due to title IX the WBB budget has to pretty well offset the MBB budget. In recent years at CU football revenues have had to subsidize both MBB and WBB. Now the men are drawing much larger crowds and getting other revenue opportunities. MBB should now be a revenue producer for the school. A successful WBB program will probably never be a revenue producer but a winning program can draw a lot more fans and generate other revenues to significantly reduce the program deficit. All this means that football profits can go into other sports or heaven forbid, developing the football program.

In addition to this a lot of the PC "big athletic haters" have a hard time hating a successful women's program. A strong WBB program in Boulder will make life easier for everyone involved.
 
buffgal said:
According to the Media Guide for this season which I have downloaded, the last time CU was in the polls was January 14, 2008, when they were ranked 25th in the AP poll and not ranked in the Coaches' Poll. That was the season that Jackie McFarland led the team to the WNIT. They only went 5-11 in the Big 12, but got hot in the WNIT.

This team is getting noticed much earlier in the season, so I'm counting on going to the Dance. #LappeDays
Click to expand...

Remember having a lot of optimism for that team and thinking they'd make the Dance, and then things just fell apart in February.
 
MtnBuff said:
PAC 12 has some brutaly tough competion in WBB but the B12 wasn't bad either. Ceal had a number of top 10 type teams and there is no reason that CU WBB can't be a significant name again.

In addition to this a lot of the PC "big athletic haters" have a hard time hating a successful women's program. A strong WBB program in Boulder will make life easier for everyone involved.
Click to expand...

The Big 12 was significantly more challenging than the Pac 12. 5-6 teams each season were getting to the NCAA tourney. Baylor and A&M won national championships. It seems the Pac 12 is improved this season over last, but still isn't up to the standards of the old Big 12. Perhaps in time it will get there, and if it does I think CU will be a major part of change to a more challenging conference slate.

Whether people like it or not, football drives the athletic department in terms of revenue and media attention. Even in bad years the football team is able to generate enough money to help pay for all the other sports programs.

I believe that is possible for the women's team to get to the point where they will average 3-4 K per game, but to do so they will have to ranked in the top 15 or so from the beginning of the season. Interestingly, CU was at the low end of average attendance in the Big 12 when they left, but I believe they were second in the Pac 12 last season, behind Stanford.

Speaking of Stanford, it's too bad CU is hosting them when the local schools are still on vacation (CU students make up a small % of attendees for women's games). A relatively high proportion of the potential fans will be out of town). If the game was a week or so later we might see 5 K plus.
 
Just comparing the current rankings AP for women the PAC has the #1, #8, #17, and #23 with Utah recieving votes.
The Big XII has #3, #14, #18, #20, #22, #24, and the first two teams in votes outside the top 25.

Based on just that it is easy to argue that the Big can't count is much deeper but both are pretty strong and it will be interesting to see what happens in the rankings when teams start playing conference schedules.

With all this I don't see a reason why CU can't be a consistent upper end team in WBB. Colorado produces a number of quality girls players and past history has shown that top quality players are willing to come to CU from out of state. When Ceal's teams were good attendance was strong and they had media support.

My first priority as a fan is of course football then MBB but I also don't see a reason why CU should not have quality programs in multiple sports. WBB is one of those where we should expect and demand quality results.
 
MtnBuff said:
Just comparing the current rankings AP for women the PAC has the #1, #8, #17, and #23 with Utah recieving votes.
The Big XII has #3, #14, #18, #20, #22, #24, and the first two teams in votes outside the top 25.

Based on just that it is easy to argue that the Big can't count is much deeper but both are pretty strong and it will be interesting to see what happens in the rankings when teams start playing conference schedules.

With all this I don't see a reason why CU can't be a consistent upper end team in WBB. Colorado produces a number of quality girls players and past history has shown that top quality players are willing to come to CU from out of state. When Ceal's teams were good attendance was strong and they had media support.

My first priority as a fan is of course football then MBB but I also don't see a reason why CU should not have quality programs in multiple sports. WBB is one of those where we should expect and demand quality results.
Click to expand...

Agreed on almost all points (football isn't my first priority). For years I have felt that in a number of women's sports Cu could be competitive nationally - basketball, volleyball and soccer. The move to the Pac 12 is going to help all sports financially and it will also help them in terms of recruiting. Next season WBB will have 8 players from Pac 12 states, excluding Colorado. Volleyball and soccer are also heavily invested in recruiting the west coast.

In terms of comparing the Pac 12 to the Big whatever :), I was making a comparison with the Big 12 at the time CU left when Texas A&M was in the conference and they were a powerhouse in WBB. It seems that in WBB CU will be one of the programs that helps the Pac 12 to a higher collective rpi and thus getting more at-large bids to the NCAA tourney.
 
For me, WBB is my priority, followed by MBB and then football. Yes, I know football brings in the $, but basketball is the sport I love.

Ceal's teams that were consistently ranked did bring in crowds on a consistent basis. CU fans need to learn now to support the team and be good, rowdy fans again.

I think the Pac 12 was more physical than CU was anticipating, especially in the post. The post players were bigger and stronger than those in the Big 12 that we had faced--aside from Griner, who is in a league of her own. What happens in the Big 12, is as the season progresses, they knock each other off, especially now that they play a round robin schedule in conference. That could make it more difficult to get so many teams in the Dance. Even the Iowa State fans said last year, they only got in because they were hosting and they got beat in the first round.
 
CVilleBuff said:
Remember having a lot of optimism for that team and thinking they'd make the Dance, and then things just fell apart in February.
Click to expand...

Major problem with that team was the coaching left a lot to be desired. Jackie had nobody around her and finally figured out she had to do it all herself. Jackie McFarland has never gotten the kind of recognition she deserved because of the kind of teams she played on. She was tall, but thin. However, she was very strong. Teams could triple team her and she'd score. Triple teaming Jackie should have left others open, but they couldn't shoot and our opponents knew it. It was all Jackie.
 
WizzersGhost said:
Beat the Trees and Cali and move up even more! Top Ten, maybe?
Click to expand...

Win those 2 and it would be a crime not to be ranked in the top 5. That's like beating 2 Elite 8 teams.

We're good, but I don't think we're that good. If we can get a split I'd be ecstatic.
 
It's appropriate that the Buffs are ranked. They've earned it and seem to be getting their mojo back after the rough games against Stanford and Cal. At this time they look like they will get an at-large bid to the NCAA tourney.

Both games this weekend are must wins.
 
We're looking great for the tourney and a decent seed at the moment. Let's take care of business against UA and ASU at home, and cross our fingers to somehow go 2-2 on that brutal Cali road stretch (certainly 1-3 at a minimum).
 
Back in the Coaches' Poll at number 25. Have to win this weekend before the trips to California.
 
Crept up one spot on the new AP poll to #20. Brian Howell's twitter from yesterday said that as of last weeks poll there were still 2 of the 40 voters who did not have CU included on their ballots. Wonder if that changed this week? Think I'll ask him.
 
CVilleBuff said:
We're looking great for the tourney and a decent seed at the moment. Let's take care of business against UA and ASU at home, and cross our fingers to somehow go 2-2 on that brutal Cali road stretch (certainly 1-3 at a minimum).
Click to expand...

I can see a W at either Cali or UCLA, if they play as well as they did yesterday, at either place. Great to see a complete game from them.

Now, if the men could start to do that........
 
BeBe said:
Crept up one spot on the new AP poll to #20. Brian Howell's twitter from yesterday said that as of last weeks poll there were still 2 of the 40 voters who did not have CU included on their ballots. Wonder if that changed this week? Think I'll ask him.
Click to expand...

Did you ask Brian? He usually responds if I ask him a question.
 
Yes... he said there were 3 voters who did not include Colorado on their ballots this week ... the 2 from last week plus someone from Austin who had CU on the ballot last week had dropped them off this week.
 
BeBe said:
Yes... he said there were 3 voters who did not include Colorado on their ballots this week ... the 2 from last week plus someone from Austin who had CU on the ballot last week had dropped them off this week.
Click to expand...

That makes sense. Beat 2 conference teams that had winning records, shredding one of them, and fall off the person's ballot.

Am I missing something? How would it be possible to think less of the Buffs after last week?

I really hope that the team is aware of the disrespect and builds that chip on their shoulders. As we've learned from voters and selection committees in the past, no one is going to give anything. You've got to take it.
 
Buffnik said:
That makes sense. Beat 2 conference teams that had winning records, shredding one of them, and fall off the person's ballot.

Am I missing something? How would it be possible to think less of the Buffs after last week?

I really hope that the team is aware of the disrespect and builds that chip on their shoulders. As we've learned from voters and selection committees in the past, no one is going to give anything. You've got to take it.
Click to expand...

I'm with you. How would you drop them after the way they performed last weekend?

Yes, get a chip on your shoulders, ladies. Use it to your advantage.
 
After losing both road games against Top 10 teams, the Buffs were respected in the polls for playing well. I think the voters are aware that we're 15-0 when not playing Cal or Stanford and that we are close enough that they both need to worry about the Buffs in the Pac-12 tourney.

AP: #22
Coach's: #23

Great opportunity to move up Friday night with a game at #18/19 UCLA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top