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

CVilleBuff said:
6/11 is the best seeding pair. No doubt. As long as you avoid that "First Round" for 11's.
Click to expand...

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:)
 
I dont think that we will move up as high as 6 the way things are going now. I see us finishing 3-1 and depending on where we shake out in seeding, there's a possibility we can make a run in the tourney - but if we play our way up to a 5 we'd pull asu in rnd 2, and that's not great matchups (Though there will be a little bit of revenge on their mind).

I'd also hope for an 11, but I think getting a 10 would be fine as well. Once you get outside of the top 8, we could draw (Based on todays polling) the mich st's, l'villes, zona, cuse, ksu & unm in the 2nd round.
 
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...

Gotta be the money, hidden behind the rationalization that these are the "last teams in", nevermind that a Cal-Virginia "play in game" is between two teams who would thrash Southern or Marist by 30 points. But then again, the extra 4 teams is highly beneficial to mid-tier power conference programs, so they can't complain too much. Stupid format, though.
 
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...

I completely agree but the idea of going to 65 and then to 68 is beyond ridiculous. Like you said, it's all political so more teams can get into the tournament. And they can't use the excuse of trying to eliminate unfair snubs because I don't care if the number is 64, 68, 96, or 128 there's gonna be deserving teams who don't make the field for that given size. That's just how it is so deal with it and quit trying to give everyone a trophy.
 
Go back to 64 and get rid of four "at large" spots or make all the play in games "at large" bids. Period. Not fair to the guys in the ****** directional schools who bust their ass for a chance to be a 16 seed to get relegated to Dayton.
 
JPinCO said:
I'm guessing we'll be a 10 as it stands today, which means our likely opponents are Memphis, NCSU, and Illinois; with teams like VCU, SDSU, Oklahoma, and Minnesota in the mix (with PAC schools & CSU highly unlikely due to in-season games). I don't think Butler slips as far as Lunardi is thinking.
Click to expand...

Good Post. Pac schools and CSU aren't just highly unlikely, they absolutely will not happen in the first round according to the rules. Teams get moved up and down procedurely, not based on (supposed) merit, to avoid these things.

Rep.
 
CVilleBuff said:
Gotta be the money, hidden behind the rationalization that these are the "last teams in", nevermind that a Cal-Virginia "play in game" is between two teams who would thrash Southern or Marist by 30 points. But then again, the extra 4 teams is highly beneficial to mid-tier power conference programs, so they can't complain too much. Stupid format, though.
Click to expand...

They may go in and thrash the southerns/marists/belmonts or not thrash the lehighs and the norfolk st's (right mizzou/duke?) but Cal/VA were at-large bids. These guys won their league and cal/va did not last year. Winning the league (even if small conf) and getting tossed into a play-in game would blow. If they are for the last handful of teams on the bubble, the smaller schools like southern or marist did all they could to get in, and shouldnt get saddled with a play in because they have less pull/fanbase/whatever than cal or someone of a similar ilk.
 
wyobuff said:
They may go in and thrash the southerns/marists/belmonts or not thrash the lehighs and the norfolk st's (right mizzou/duke?) but Cal/VA were at-large bids. These guys won their league and cal/va did not last year. Winning the league (even if small conf) and getting tossed into a play-in game would blow. If they are for the last handful of teams on the bubble, the smaller schools like southern or marist did all they could to get in, and shouldnt get saddled with a play in because they have less pull/fanbase/whatever than cal or someone of a similar ilk.
Click to expand...

I think everyone is in favor of pulling it back to 64. 4 fewer at-large teams wouldn't reduce the quality of the tournament in the least.
 
wyobuff said:
They may go in and thrash the southerns/marists/belmonts or not thrash the lehighs and the norfolk st's (right mizzou/duke?) but Cal/VA were at-large bids. These guys won their league and cal/va did not last year. Winning the league (even if small conf) and getting tossed into a play-in game would blow. If they are for the last handful of teams on the bubble, the smaller schools like southern or marist did all they could to get in, and shouldnt get saddled with a play in because they have less pull/fanbase/whatever than cal or someone of a similar ilk.
Click to expand...

The play-in games suck. I'm strongly in favor of bringing it back to 64. However, in the meantime, I'm not going to buy the argument that Southern won the SWAC and thus deserves something more than a 22 win power conference team. No, they don't.
 
CVilleBuff said:
The play-in games suck. I'm strongly in favor of bringing it back to 64. However, in the meantime, I'm not going to buy the argument that Southern won the SWAC and thus deserves something more than a 22 win power conference team. No, they don't.
Click to expand...

It's true that many of these auto-bid teams are weaker than the last of the at-large teams to get in, hence we see the final at-large teams getting 11 or 12 seeds while many of the small conference champions are seeded in the 13-16 range. While I agree that the SWAC champion is not not more deserving than a middle-of-the-pack team from one of the major conferences, the small conference champions are part of what makes this tournament so great on the opening weekend. If you're finishing in the lower half of a big conference then in most cases you don't deserve to play in the tournament.

64 teams was the perfect size given the 34 auto bids (or however many it is).
 
CVilleBuff said:
Palm is nearly the same for the Buffs....9 seed playing Mizzou in Dayton, winner plays Indiana. Would prefer that over NC State.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/bracketology

However, they have removed CU off their bubble list entirely from "Probably In". Might be a win premature, but hey, I don't mind it.
Click to expand...

They also have Colorado St as a 6 seed playing St Mary's. At first, I said :wtf:.. easy draw. Then I saw they'd be playing the winner of Kansas (in Kansas City) or South Dakota st :lol:. Good luck with that draw. We've played Kansas in Kansas City enough times to know that's a bad situation. If SDSU pulls the upset, then we'd get to watch Wolters go all Kendall Williams on the Rammies.
 
Jerry Palm has us a 9 playing 8 Mizzou in Dayton for the right to play Indiana.

Do these bracketology guys actually know anything about the locations or is it entirely a guess? Dayton keeps coming up
 
If we're going to be a 8/9 seed, I hope they put us in the Western bracket as that is where Gonzaga is almost certain to be, and they are ripe for an early exit. Of all the 1's, Indiana scares me the most
 
I just looked and if we're an 8 or 9 seed the only possible locations are Kansas City, Lexington, Dayton, and SLC
 
sliderNcider said:
I just looked and if we're an 8 or 9 seed the only possible locations are Kansas City, Lexington, Dayton, and SLC
Click to expand...

SLC or KC would be sweet for Buff fans. SLC better for me, but I'd take either happily so long as Kansas isn't the 1 seed in KC with us as the 8/9.
 
sliderNcider said:
I just looked and if we're an 8 or 9 seed the only possible locations are Kansas City, Lexington, Dayton, and SLC
Click to expand...

That's not really accurate. 8/9s can go anywhere. With the Pod system, it just depends on who gets the highest seeds, and where they get sent. They do everything they can to put the highest seeds in whatever pod would be closest, regardless of what region it is. Those 4 cities are probably just a product of what #1 seeds everyone has right now.

Also, I may just be making this up, but it seems to me that they were going to try to have at least two of the teams that come out of the opening round go into a Dayton pod to decrease travel.
 
torerobuff said:
That's not really accurate. 8/9s can go anywhere. With the Pod system, it just depends on who gets the highest seeds, and where they get sent. They do everything they can to put the highest seeds in whatever pod would be closest, regardless of what region it is. Those 4 cities are probably just a product of what #1 seeds everyone has right now.

Also, I may just be making this up, but it seems to me that they were going to try to have at least two of the teams that come out of the opening round go into a Dayton pod to decrease travel.
Click to expand...

Ahh, thanks and makes sense.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
Ohio State would be a pretty damm good 7-seed.
Click to expand...

Yep, I personally think Ohio State ends up more like a 5 seed, don't buy them as a 7 unless they lose 3 in a row. They're 21-7 (11-5) tied for 2nd in the brutal B1G. Of course the top 25 doesn't matter much, but they're ranked 14/15. RPI is 21.
 
ahoelsken said:
http://dailybracket.wordpress.com/

Like this draw better? Playing VCU (who probably wouldn't be fun to play) to play Duke in Philly---If we're seeded 7-10, Duke is probably my top choice in terms of 1-2 seeds I'd want to get paired with....They've got a history of losing to subpar competition in the Big Dance.
Click to expand...

VCU scares the **** out of me, I could easily see us getting rattled and turning it over. They ate Butler alive. But the fact is with the seeding we're looking at makes it unlikely we get an opponent we feel great about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top