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!

Bracketology 2013/2014

cubuffs85 said:
I don't think it's completely illogical for them to lose a seed or two if teams behind them won (I can't see if that happened or not), someone has to be displaced. It's easier though IMO for Lunardi/Palm to make drastic moves than it is for a committee of multiple members to.

Here's an article on committee member(and future Pac-12 Deputy Commish) Jamie Zaninovich work on the committee:
Click to expand...



Stanford lost by more to a far lesser opponent and didn't drop. Logic is not present with all of Lunardi's moves. Hope the committee does a better job, but I doubt it. Good news is it's unlikely to be where Lunardi has you placed.
 
CVilleBuff said:
Stanford lost by more to a far lesser opponent and didn't drop. Logic is not present with all of Lunardi's moves. Hope the committee does a better job, but I doubt it. Good news is it's unlikely to be where Lunardi has you placed.
Click to expand...
Like anything else, you're going to find faults and I agree, CU shouldn't be behind Stanford. I just don't think CU could only move up and couldn't move down. If a team behind them won and deserved to move up, you would've had to drop them.
 
Virginia beats Pitt. That should lock up a 2 seed for the Hoos. Outside shot at a 1 seed if they win the tournament tomorrow.
 
Personally, hope CU is a 10 seed over being a 9 seed, even if the Buffs are very deserving of a 8/9 seed imo.
 
rolandftw said:
Personally, hope CU is a 10 seed over being a 9 seed, even if the Buffs are very deserving of a 8/9 seed imo.
Click to expand...
All dependent on the matchups, mostly what we'll give us a first round win. But I think I agree here. In some ways, I think losing might help us. I don't think we can fall down to an 11.
 
My conspiracy theory is that Stanford is benefiting from the corollary to the "ESPN Loves Duke" rule. Johnny Dawkins was the National POY at Duke and then spent a decade there as an assistant coach before going to Stanford. Therefore, ESPN has a hard-on for anything Johnny Dawkins and Stanford will get seeded 2 lines higher than it deserves when ESPN does its mock brackets and Stanford will also get talked up in dramatic excess to what it actually deserves.
 
rolandftw said:
Personally, hope CU is a 10 seed over being a 9 seed, even if the Buffs are very deserving of a 8/9 seed imo.
Click to expand...

8/9 is a tough spot to have much hope of surviving the weekend, but this year I'm not sure there's much hope of winning more than 1 game regardless. So maybe getting the more winnable first game (8/9) is what would be best. Avoiding Florida in Orlando is crucial, but aside from that I'm not sure there's honestly much difference between Wichita St, whoever the final 1 seed is and the 2 seeds.
 
Buffnik said:
My conspiracy theory is that Stanford is benefiting from the corollary to the "ESPN Loves Duke" rule. Johnny Dawkins was the National POY at Duke and then spent a decade there as an assistant coach before going to Stanford. Therefore, ESPN has a hard-on for anything Johnny Dawkins and Stanford will get seeded 2 lines higher than it deserves when ESPN does its mock brackets and Stanford will also get talked up in dramatic excess to what it actually deserves.
Click to expand...
Speaking of Johnny Dawkins, you think he has to win a Tourney game atleast to keep his job?
 
CVilleBuff said:
Virginia beats Pitt. That should lock up a 2 seed for the Hoos. Outside shot at a 1 seed if they win the tournament tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Hey CVille, I was out running some errands a little bit ago and heard a stat on the radio that I found pretty amazing - UVA has only won the ACC tournament once, back in 1976 I think he said. I would've thought they won at least 1 with Sampson although I know they lost to NCSU when Valvano's team made that run in 83.
 
Last edited:
CarolinaBuff said:
Hey CVille, I was out running some errands a little bit ago and heard a stat on the radio that I found pretty amazing - UVA has only won the ACC tournament once, back in 1976 I think he said. I would've thought they won at least 1 with Sampson although I know they lost to NCSU when Valvano's team made that run in 83.
Click to expand...

Yep, 1976. I've been staring at that banner for a longggg time. Hard to comprehend how they didn't win an ACC tournament with Sampson (they won the regular season multiple times) or a national title during that time frame. Easily the best team(s) to fall short. And this is their first finals appearance in 19 years (first time past the quarterfinal in 19). It's hard for UVA or anyone else not from NC to find success in such a pro tobacco road environment.
 
They could've called Bairstow with the elbow on that inbounds pass by UNM. Lobos could be looking at a 4 or 5 seed with this win.
 
Personally, I think Lunardi deliberately shuffles the seeding around to where it makes less sense. It's not about accuracy, it's about eyeballs on a Bracketology page that sells advertising. If he doesn't generate some controversy, fewer people to the site. Proof: his seeding accuracy in years' past leaves a lot to be desired.
 
JPinCO said:
Personally, I think Lunardi deliberately shuffles the seeding around to where it makes less sense. It's not about accuracy, it's about eyeballs on a Bracketology page that sells advertising. If he doesn't generate some controversy, fewer people to the site. Proof: his seeding accuracy in years' past leaves a lot to be desired.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Palm has CU an 8 playing Kansas State in Orlando. Winner plays Florida, this is the one we really want to avoid.

Lunardi has CU a 10 playing Gonzaga in Milwaukee. Winner plays Wisconsin.

Bracket Matrix averages CU out as the second 9 seed.
 
I think an 8/9 is the most likely outcome, which kinda sucks. Florida, AZ, and Louisville are the teams I'd like to avoid as long as possible. I'll take any Big Ten team apart from Michigan State.
 
jcatcher said:
I think an 8/9 is the most likely outcome, which kinda sucks. Florida, AZ, and Louisville are the teams I'd like to avoid as long as possible. I'll take any Big Ten team apart from Michigan State.
Click to expand...

9 seems to be the safest guess. Our resume warrants higher, but part of me can't shake the feeling of getting seeded lower than we should be, although it's REALLY hard to see how we could be below a 10 unless they completely ignore what we proved without Dinwiddie. And considering no one east of Denver actually saw CU, that chance is always there.
 
jcatcher said:
A 10 seed might be preferable to an 8/9, depending on who the corresponding 1 seed is.
Click to expand...
The 10th seed is probably preferable unless the opponent is potentially Wichita. Still winning the first round isn't going to be an easy task for this team, so if given the choice, I'd rather play where we have a good shot of winning our first round game than a better potential matchup in the 2nd round, JMO.
 
Depends whether you think CU can potentially beat a Michigan, Virginia, Duke type school and make the Sweet 16, or if you'd rather just get a more winnable first game as an 8/9 because that's probably our limit
 
CVilleBuff said:
8/9 is a tough spot to have much hope of surviving the weekend, but this year I'm not sure there's much hope of winning more than 1 game regardless. So maybe getting the more winnable first game (8/9) is what would be best. Avoiding Florida in Orlando is crucial, but aside from that I'm not sure there's honestly much difference between Wichita St, whoever the final 1 seed is and the 2 seeds.
Click to expand...

I think before the Bay area trip, I would have agreed. Not much chance of advancing. But think the team has really bought in defensively to what Tad wants and that is going to give them a chance against most teams. I just don't want Florida or Louisville. Anyone else, and I'll believe CU will have a legitimate shot of pulling off the upset
 
My opinion is that CU's fair value is around a 6 seed, and playing a Texas or Gonzaga or St. Louis isn't any more difficult than playing Oregon or GW, so I'll take my chances on meeting Wisconsin or Kansas in the next round over AZ or Florida. And I say this as a Wisconsin alum. I also have to say that I have not seen Wichita State play one minute this season.
 
rolandftw said:
I think before the Bay area trip, I would have agreed. Not much chance of advancing. But think the team has really bought in defensively to what Tad wants and that is going to give them a chance against most teams. I just don't want Florida or Louisville. Anyone else, and I'll believe CU will have a legitimate shot of pulling off the upset
Click to expand...
Yeah we had a good, could've been great weekend in the Ba Area. We won one real road game post-Spencer; in Vegas, pushed our limits against USC, I did like the Cal game however. Do we have a chance in the second round, if were playing our best and the other team isn't, sure. We just would need a lot to go in our favor. I just think getting through the first round is going to be a tough task in itself before we can even worry about the rest of the bracket. I'd love to get to the Sweet 16 and pre-Spencer injury, I would've told you just making the Tourney wasn't enough.
 
Please announce CU early in the show tomorrow. Last year we waited and waited, and it's safe to say we will forever be rattled by 2011. But we were frankly nicely seeded as an 11 in 2012 (I mean, Oregon won the Pac12 tournament last year and only got a 12) and a 10 seed last year was perfectly fair (however anxious the wait was).
 
cubuffs85 said:
. Do we have a chance in the second round, if were playing our best and the other team isn't, sure. We just would need a lot to go in our favor. I just think getting through the first round is going to be a tough task in itself before we can even worry about the rest of the bracket. I'd love to get to the Sweet 16 and pre-Spencer injury, I would've told you just making the Tourney wasn't enough.
Click to expand...

Need to catch some breaks for sure. But there's only a few teams where if CU were to be matched up with them that I'd think the Buffs had basically little to no chance of winning.

Obviously, have to win the first game
 
rolandftw said:
Need to catch some breaks for sure. But there's only a few teams where if CU were to be matched up with them that I'd think the Buffs had basically little to no chance of winning.

Obviously, have to win the first game
Click to expand...
Let me put it this way, if we have less than a ~35-40% of winning a game in the "real" second round, I'd much rather just get that winnable first round matchup than potential 2nd round upset with more of a 50/50 first round game. As you even conceded, we're going to need to catch breaks.

While I was encouraged by what I saw in the Bay Area and even this week excluding UofA(has more to do with their talent than our lack of it in matching up with them and they're clearly on another level compared to us), I just didn't see enough post Spencer against highly caliber clubs especially on the road. And besides Cal, I think we were on the right end of games that could've gone either way.

The good news is in 15 hours we can evaluate this a lot better than we can now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top