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!

Lunardi- bracketology

Based on this quote from the bubble watch link... "It wasn't an overly busy night in college basketball, but here is a quick update after the losses by Kentucky and Virginia..."...it seems that he did his recalculations shortly after the 7 PM ET games ended and then submitted it for uploading shortly after our game began, but for whatever reason ESPN took 3 hours to put it online...it's clear our win was not considered in this latest "update" and I expect that to be rectified sometime tomorrow...

CVilleBuff said:
I question Lunardi even further now after his brief 12:25 AM update. CU obliterates Oregon without our top player, and we don't move up at all? **** you, Lunardi. Maybe if he'd stop wanking to the A-10 and Big East for a second and check the scores, he'd figure it out.

Anyway:

Last Four In: Temple, Virginia, Boise State, Tennessee

First Four Out: Ole Miss, Alabama, Southern Miss, Baylor

Next Four Out: Arizona State, Kentucky, Maryland, Providence.

Just unreal we're talking about Southern Miss potentially slipping in. Not to mention Maryland (RPI 86) and Arizona State (RPI 95).
Click to expand...
 
BuffAlum2007 said:
Based on this quote from the bubble watch link... "It wasn't an overly busy night in college basketball, but here is a quick update after the losses by Kentucky and Virginia..."...it seems that he did his recalculations shortly after the 7 PM ET games ended and then submitted it for uploading shortly after our game began, but for whatever reason ESPN took 3 hours to put it online...it's clear our win was not considered in this latest "update" and I expect that to be rectified sometime tomorrow...
Click to expand...

Think you must be right. The 12:25 AM timestamp threw me off, but what you said simply has to be the case. There's no way we're floating in 11 seed land (Lunardi's pervious view) after this win.
 
Last edited:
The Buffs are CBSSports Bubble Watch "Winner" of the night http://www.cbssports.com/collegebas...n-bubbles-teams-on-the-cutline-face-must-wins

Winner
Colorado: The Buffaloes probably needed one more win to feel secure about their at-large status, and they looked to be in trouble after it was reported that rebounding extraordinaire Andre Roberson would miss Thursday's game against Oregon. However, they came out of the gate with plenty of energy and cruised to a 23-point victory over the Ducks. That should be enough for Colorado to get a bid to the NCAA tournament. The computer numbers are very solid and they are now 5-4 against the top 50. This weekend's tilt against Oregon State would be nice to get, but it's likely unnecessary.
Click to expand...
 
I don't get how Baylor is even under consideration at this point. They've basically beat one good team (Oklahoma State), and have two bad losses (Texas and Charleston). Combine that with a RPI in the 60's and a below average record in the Big XII, and I just don't get how they could be even remotely close to making the tourney.

I dunno if there is any evidence to support this, but Palm seems to be more accurate then Lunardi
 
rolandftw said:
I don't get how Baylor is even under consideration at this point. They've basically beat one good team (Oklahoma State), and have two bad losses (Texas and Charleston). Combine that with a RPI in the 60's and a below average record in the Big XII, and I just don't get how they could be even remotely close to making the tourney.

I dunno if there is any evidence to support this, but Palm seems to be more accurate then Lunardi
Click to expand...
He is by a small (and probably statistically insignificant) margin, according to this. Both are middle of the pack compared to other "expert" bracketologists around the Web, though.
 
rolandftw said:
I don't get how Baylor is even under consideration at this point. They've basically beat one good team (Oklahoma State), and have two bad losses (Texas and Charleston). Combine that with a RPI in the 60's and a below average record in the Big XII, and I just don't get how they could be even remotely close to making the tourney.

I dunno if there is any evidence to support this, but Palm seems to be more accurate then Lunardi
Click to expand...

Take a look at the resumes of Ole Miss, Alabama, Southern Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee and you'll understand why Baylor is in consideration still. (Hell, Arizona State and Maryland are still being flung around the fringes with RPI's of 95 and 86, respectively). Baylor has a home game against Kansas to finish the regular season. However unlikely, if they win that, they can sneak in with a strong Big XII Tournament.
 
Palm update as of Friday morning.

CU up to a 9 seed, playing North Carolina. For right to play Louisville. In Lexington. Uh, no thank you. Better beat the Beavs, boys. Let's get the **** out of these types of scenarios. He also finally officially moved CU from "Should Be In" to "Lock".

I'm still annoyed Oregon is projected as a 6. Nothing about their play warrants a 6.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
 
CVilleBuff said:
Palm update as of Friday morning.

CU up to a 9 seed, playing North Carolina. For right to play Louisville. In Lexington. Uh, no thank you. Better beat the Beavs, boys. Let's get the **** out of these types of scenarios. He also finally officially moved CU from "Should Be In" to "Lock".

I'm still annoyed Oregon is projected as a 6. Nothing about their play warrants a 6.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. We should be a higher seed than Oregon for sure, and probably Cal too. So what if Oregon ends up winning 2 more games than us over the whole season...that isn't hard to do at all when you play a bad schedule. And we swept them. I would think having 21 wins with a top 20 SOS and an RPI in the top 30 would be better than having 23 wins with a SOS around 120 and an RPI around 50...especially if you swept the team with a couple more wins than you.
 
Hopefully a Pac 12 run of victories over probably Washington State, Arizona, Oregon and UCLA will get the job done and put us in a 5 or 6 seed
 
Beyond the RPI boost and 20 wins, last night's win should keep us out of the bottom half of the conference. I didn't want us to put the committee in the position of selecting CU, while snubbing a couple of teams that finished ahead of us in conference play. That's dangerous territory.
 
There's not a lot of respect for the Buffs by the "experts", although a big part of the problem is the team's bad losses. Losing twice to ASU, losing to Utah and losing to the Pokes really doesn't help. The only way we move up to a 6 or 7 is if we take care of business against the beavs and win at least 2 games in the tournament. Anything less and we'll end up an 8/9. Of course none of this matters if Dre really has mono. Last night's performance was spectacular, but without Dre in the lineup a one and done in the dance wouldn't surprise me at all.
 
Am I crazy for almost rather wanting a 10 rather than a 8 or 9? It seems effing impossible to move up on these things.
 
Bone Buff said:
Am I crazy for almost rather wanting a 10 rather than a 8 or 9? It seems effing impossible to move up on these things.
Click to expand...

Nope. Had we lost to Oregon, I would have started trying to figure out a way for us to get an 11 seed instead of a 9 or 10. Now that we won, I'm hoping we can go on enough of a run to get us to a 7.
 
With the way the 1 seeds are changing from week to week I don't necessarily think being an 8/9 seed would be all that bad this year. In most years yes, but this year I think is somewhat of a unique situation. Out of top 8-10 teams, there's certain teams I'd like to avoid in round 2 so in some situations I'd rather be playing a 1-seed instead of a 2-seed in round 2 depending on who that team is. You have to remember that these seedings are an inexact science and therefore there's gonna be 1-seeds that should be 2 or 3-seeds and vice versa.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
With the way the 1 seeds are changing from week to week I don't necessarily think being an 8/9 seed would be all that bad this year. In most years yes, but this year I think is somewhat of a unique situation. Out of top 8-10 teams, there's certain teams I'd like to avoid in round 2 so in some situations I'd rather be playing a 1-seed instead of a 2-seed in round 2 depending on who that team is. You have to remember that these seedings are an inexact science and therefore there's gonna be 1-seeds that should be 2 or 3-seeds and vice versa.
Click to expand...

I agree. With the way CU plays D, I think if they get 8-9 seed and advance to play a number 1, the number 1 will be in for a nasty dog fight that Colorado could definitely win.
 
mikefeiman said:
There's not a lot of respect for the Buffs by the "experts", although a big part of the problem is the team's bad losses. Losing twice to ASU, losing to Utah and losing to the Pokes really doesn't help. The only way we move up to a 6 or 7 is if we take care of business against the beavs and win at least 2 games in the tournament. Anything less and we'll end up an 8/9. Of course none of this matters if Dre really has mono. Last night's performance was spectacular, but without Dre in the lineup a one and done in the dance wouldn't surprise me at all.
Click to expand...

The only bad loss there is Utah, Wyoming and Arizona St are both top 100 RPI, (70's and 90's, I think).
 
Bone Buff said:
The only bad loss there is Utah, Wyoming and Arizona St are both top 100 RPI, (70's and 90's, I think).
Click to expand...

And Wyoming of the last two months is a shell of themselves with suspensions and injuries. Would have likely been a tournament team with this weak bubble had they held up. We got a very different beast in Laramie than what the MWC got
 
So Oregon moves down, and we stay flat. What? This isn't tennis, we're not just holding serve. Legit win over a top 25 team.
 
Buffnik said:
btw, that "first round" for at-large bids is the stupidest thing ever devised. Make the overall lowest seeds play the extra games if you're going to go above 64. Why stick it to an 11-seed when a 15-seed doesn't have to do it? ****ing happy-feely politics of sticking it to the big dogs.

(Might be a money thing, too. I'm sure ESPN didn't want all of the early extra games to be between 5k enrollment directional schools that no one would watch. Still pisses me off. :soapbox:)
Click to expand...
It was a compromise between the small/large schools. Besides, it gives incentitive to those teams "in" to keep playing hard. Think of it this way -- CU is LIKELY in at this point. But if they lose the next two games, they could fall to the "last four in." Sort of the reason baseball makes the WC play-in game exactly that, if it were a best-of-3, it wouldn't be as much of an incentitive for the "better" team to avoid.
 
Bone Buff said:
Am I crazy for almost rather wanting a 10 rather than a 8 or 9? It seems effing impossible to move up on these things.
Click to expand...

Not really, but it's really just a matchup thing. As I said earlier, I don't think there's going to be much difference between a 6 and 11 this year, that's usually the case between a 7 and 10.
 
cubuffs85 said:
It was a compromise between the small/large schools. Besides, it gives incentitive to those teams "in" to keep playing hard. Think of it this way -- CU is LIKELY in at this point. But if they lose the next two games, they could fall to the "last four in." Sort of the reason baseball makes the WC play-in game exactly that, if it were a best-of-3, it wouldn't be as much of an incentitive for the "better" team to avoid.
Click to expand...

I don't buy it from the "incentive" standpoint. Those "Last 4 In" would be the "First 4 Out" if we kept the field at 64. There is more than enough incentive to keep playing hard at the end of the year.
 
Daaah said:
I want no part of Blowhio Stank.
Click to expand...

I could handle it as our Round of 32 game since it's nearly inevitable things are going to get tough by then unless you luck out and benefit from a big upset, but I agree, not ideal..especially in Dayton, dear god. 11 is a good seed usually for matchups, but there's just no way the Buffs deserve an 11 after last night. How Lunardi refused to move CU up a single spot is baffling.
 
I still think we can get a 6 seed with a win Saturday and a deep run in the P12T.

We're 5-4 against the Top 50. And everyone knows that it should be 6-3.
 
Buffnik said:
I still think we can get a 6 seed with a win Saturday and a deep run in the P12T.

We're 5-4 against the Top 50. And everyone knows that it should be 6-3.
Click to expand...

If we can get that first round bye, with some help from ASU, I think we have a shot at winning the thing again. Especially with a well rested Andre Roberson. Winning the Tourney would get us a 6/7 I would imagine.
 
Buffnik said:
I still think we can get a 6 seed with a win Saturday and a deep run in the P12T.

We're 5-4 against the Top 50. And everyone knows that it should be 6-3.
Click to expand...

6 seed is the ultimate ceiling, IMO. A lot of it is perception, and for some reason, everyone has been so busy being on certain other Pac-12 teams nuts that we're largely forgotten about and stuck in this 9-11 seed spider web for weeks (and, truth be told, we partially brought it on ourselves via the Pac-12 standings)
 
Bone Buff said:
The only bad loss there is Utah, Wyoming and Arizona St are both top 100 RPI, (70's and 90's, I think).
Click to expand...

Not in the eyes of the world outside of the Pac-12. Splitting with ASU would have been one thing, but losing at home to a team with an RPI that hovers in the 90-100 range and a SoS in the mid-100s is not good. As for Wyoming, they have an RPI in the 70s, but that is more than overshadowed by their abysmal 4-12 MWC conference record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top