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!

CU MBB Rankings/NET/KenPom/Bracketology Catch-All

Buffnik said:
If we were in any other Big Six conference with our exact resume, it wouldn't even be a conversation about if CU was in.

And that's exactly what makes me anxious today.

Will eastern bias have an issue with 12 bids going to MWC (6), Pac (4) and WCC (2)? That'd be 9/36 (25%) of at-large to the west.

Secondly, there's no pressure to advocate for the Pac-12 since it's the last hurrah for the league.

There are some things working against us with needing to leave some more marquee programs and coaches out in order to select CU. Also, maybe a bad year to be Indiana State and FAU.
Click to expand...
My only hope is that having 3 potential draft picks, and the reflected shine of Prime works a bit in our favor.
 
GRM said:
Using my weird logic, I think the committee will still look at conferences to balance things out, just like the Bracketologists seem to look and sort of just move within conferences, except this last week. This is where if push comes to shove, and they only take 3 in the Pac12 it would be Ore (aq), Zona, and CU are in--sorry Wash St. Both teams have 24 wins. CU won 9 of 10 to end season, and beat Wazzu a few days ago in tourney. Wazzu is 7-3 in last 10, with losses to ASU, WA at home, and CU. The NET has CU at 25, 4-5 Q1, 6-5 Q2. Wash St. 44 NET, 6-4 Q1, 3-4Q2 and a Q3 loss. Kenpom CU 27, Wazzu 42. IMO, although Wazzu has been in the various rankings (AP etc..) for many weeks, it comes down to how you close out the season. CU has been better. Also, Q3 or Q4 losses are supposed to hurt, and Wazzu has one, CU none.

Personally, I think both should be in, others should be out. CSU should be sweating some since then went 5-5 to end the season but they did play well in the tourney. Another out I would find is Northwestern, 54 NET, 6-4, 1 and done in tourney, a loss to Rutgers, and a Q4 loss--their net is 7th within their conference.
Click to expand...
wouldn’t consider this all that weird. Wazzu is more similar to the 2011 Buffs team. had they not owned UofA they wouldn’t be in the convo at this point
 
If the committee cares about ratings (which they probably do) then they want Shedeur and Travis court side cheering on the possible number one pick. We’re not a blue blood, but we’re one of the most popular Universities right now.
 
NET is the primary tool the selection committee uses to evaluate teams. After all, it is named the NCAA Evaluation Tool. There is no way a top 25 NET team does not make a field of 68. It cannot happen. Especially when that team has won 9 out of its last 10. People don't give a sh*t about Colorado basketball. But I think many would find the exclusion of a top 25 team to be outrageous.
 
Committee: Hmmm . . . . we have bias against the west and the Pac-12. We can only take three teams. We have to take Oregon, because they won the tournament. And of course AZ, because they obnoxiously chant U-of-A and makes them think they're being patriotic. So that leaves CU or Wazzu. Can't decide. I know, let's make them play each other in a tourney just before the selection and the winner gets in. (But first we have to look at the video review for 12 minutes even though the call has already been made)
 
Buffnik said:
If we were in any other Big Six conference with our exact resume, it wouldn't even be a conversation about if CU was in.

And that's exactly what makes me anxious today.

Will eastern bias have an issue with 12 bids going to MWC (6), Pac (4) and WCC (2)? That'd be 9/36 (25%) of at-large to the west.

Secondly, there's no pressure to advocate for the Pac-12 since it's the last hurrah for the league.

There are some things working against us with needing to leave some more marquee programs and coaches out in order to select CU. Also, maybe a bad year to be Indiana State and FAU.
Click to expand...

Throw BYU in there too even though they're not in a western-based conference
 
When we got snubbed in 2011, RPI and SOS were still the main metrics used by the committee. This is what we had on that year:

RPI: 66; SOS: 70

This year, NET is the main metrics used by the committee, and we are top 25.

I am not saying we should feel 100% about the selection today, but can we please stop comparing this year to 2011? This is two completely different situations.
 
mccoy86 said:
If the committee cares about ratings (which they probably do) then they want Shedeur and Travis court side cheering on the possible number one pick. We’re not a blue blood, but we’re one of the most popular Universities right now.
Click to expand...
It probably impossible with his schedule, but it would have been cool if CP announced he would attend each CU tourney game
 
cnbuff410 said:
When we got snubbed in 2011, RPI and SOS were still the main metrics used by the committee. This is what we had on that year:

RPI: 66; SOS: 70

This year, NET is the main metrics used by the committee, and we are top 25.

I am not saying we should feel 100% about the selection today, but can we please stop comparing this year to 2011? This is two completely different situations.
Click to expand...
The reason it is comparable is because Colorado was a consensus “in” among bracketologists in 2011 and was considered a a significant snub by everyone compared to the teams put in over them.

The selection to the tournament is ultimately subjective and up to the whims of committee members, metrics can be used to fit any narrative.
 
cnbuff410 said:
When we got snubbed in 2011, RPI and SOS were still the main metrics used by the committee. This is what we had on that year:

RPI: 66; SOS: 70

This year, NET is the main metrics used by the committee, and we are top 25.

I am not saying we should feel 100% about the selection today, but can we please stop comparing this year to 2011? This is two completely different situations.
Click to expand...
In 2011, we had a resume like Seton Hall does this year.
 
mccoy86 said:
If the committee cares about ratings (which they probably do) then they want Shedeur and Travis court side cheering on the possible number one pick. We’re not a blue blood, but we’re one of the most popular Universities right now.
Click to expand...
Yes I’m sure some random dude in Philly is canceling brunch and explaining “ babe we gotta stay home and watch the 4-8 Quarterback cheer on the lottery pick that can’t even get minutes in crunch time”.

I mean, come on
 
Buffs1088 said:
Yes I’m sure some random dude in Philly is canceling brunch and explaining “ babe we gotta stay home and watch the 4-8 Quarterback cheer on the lottery pick that can’t even get minutes in crunch time”.

I mean, come on
Click to expand...
That feels a little troll-ish, but it was pretty funny.
 
One other factor is the NBA potential of KJ, TDS, and a more healthy Cody
NBA Teams and Scouts love more and more data and we have it in spades, might be a .0001% factor, but it helps our resume to have those types of guys out there playing
 
  • Like
Reactions: GRM
Dark Bohner said:
The reason it is comparable is because Colorado was a consensus “in” among bracketologists in 2011 and was considered a a significant snub by everyone compared to the teams put in over them.

The selection to the tournament is ultimately subjective and up to the whims of committee members, metrics can be used to fit any narrative.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Yes, 2011 resume and circumstances were very different. But the point is … when you’re on the bubble, you never know, anything can happen and metrics can be presented/interpreted in many ways to fit your narrative.
 
seattlebuff said:
That under 33 NET trend will end this year. Indiana State is 29 and St John’s is 32. We’re 25. We’re not all getting in.
Click to expand...
Indiana State definitely isn't. St. Johns' resume is decent.....but that loss to 8 win Michigan looks terrible. We don't have an L like that on resume.
 
ESPN has the Buffs playing TCU in a play-in game. Once CU stomps on the Toads, it's a rematch with Utah State.
 
GRM said:
Using my weird logic, I think the committee will still look at conferences to balance things out, just like the Bracketologists seem to look and sort of just move within conferences, except this last week. This is where if push comes to shove, and they only take 3 in the Pac12 it would be Ore (aq), Zona, and CU are in--sorry Wash St. Both teams have 24 wins. CU won 9 of 10 to end season, and beat Wazzu a few days ago in tourney. Wazzu is 7-3 in last 10, with losses to ASU, WA at home, and CU. The NET has CU at 25, 4-5 Q1, 6-5 Q2. Wash St. 44 NET, 6-4 Q1, 3-4Q2 and a Q3 loss. Kenpom CU 27, Wazzu 42. IMO, although Wazzu has been in the various rankings (AP etc..) for many weeks, it comes down to how you close out the season. CU has been better. Also, Q3 or Q4 losses are supposed to hurt, and Wazzu has one, CU none.

Personally, I think both should be in, others should be out. CSU should be sweating some since then went 5-5 to end the season but they did play well in the tourney. Another out I would find is Northwestern, 54 NET, 6-4, 1 and done in tourney, a loss to Rutgers, and a Q4 loss--their net is 7th within their conference.
Click to expand...
Wazzu's in. I think we can look at teams with Q4 losses-St Johns, Northwestern, etc. and keep them out.
 
ahoelsken said:
Indiana State definitely isn't. St. Johns' resume is decent.....but that loss to 8 win Michigan looks terrible. We don't have an L like that on resume.
Click to expand...
Not 8 wins.. but losing to 13 win Cal and 14 win ASU is not a good look (9th and 10th place respectively in the Pac12).
No matter how anyone dices it, the numbers are in the Buffs favor. Unfortunately, it is a subjective process and the NCAA may like the the storyline of the St. John's head coach to be back in the tournament.
 
Buffs1088 said:
The last four in is between us TCU St John MSU and Oklahoma. Were not ahead of TCU and all 3 other teams are favored.

Virginia is +400
Click to expand...
Draftking doesn't not have Colorado listed on the odd list, that means they don't think Colorado is on the bubble. So if you want to know their opinion, they think Colorado is in already
 
BuffinCali said:
Not 8 wins.. but losing to 13 win Cal and 14 win ASU is not a good look (9th and 10th place respectively in the Pac12).
No matter how anyone dices it, the numbers are in the Buffs favor. Unfortunately, it is a subjective process and the NCAA may like the the storyline of the St. John's head coach to be back in the tournament.
Click to expand...
Back in the tournament? He got there twice in three years with Iona. That argument doesn't hold water.

I'd rather have to explain those losses than losses to Michigan. They're quad 2. Michigan (who beat bubblers St. Johns and Seton Hall) would be a quad 4 any way you swing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top