I'm shocked ... SHOCKED ... that something as base as POLITICS could ever be involved in the selection process! :wow:
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!
Official 2014 Bubble Watch Thread
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
I'm shocked ... SHOCKED ... that something as base as POLITICS could ever be involved in the selection process! :wow:
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
St. Joseph's loses to sub 100 La Salle at home. Bad loss. Joes is on the bubble now
Say it ain't so, St. Joe's!
If you're a tournament team, you don't lose at home to La Salle at this point in the year. Wasn't flukey, either. La Salle controlled that game almost from the opening tip.
aik
Well-Known Member
Some of the games this week had the feel of a week 17 NFL team who had already secured a playoff spot and were resting their starters while losing to complete jobbers.
The problem is in actuality the scoreboard I was seeing was NCAA bubble teams losing to the likes of Auburn, La Salle, and Bama.
The problem is in actuality the scoreboard I was seeing was NCAA bubble teams losing to the likes of Auburn, La Salle, and Bama.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Both Lunardi and Palm are holding firm on Cal outside the field right now. Really want to stick it to them in the quarterfinal. Remember, they are tied with us for most current consecutive Dance appearances of Pac schools.
:wow: That's UNPOSSIBLE!!!
Everyone knows that Arizona has been to a million zillion consecutive Dances! And not only that ... they INVENTED the damn game!
Just ask them. :rolling_eyes:
If you get the Big Ten Network, you should tune into Nebraska-Wisconsin. Nebraska is right on the bubble and they haven't been to the Tournament since 1998. Wisconsin has a one seed available for the taking. Great basketball and the place is rocking. 35-33 Wisconsin just before halftime.
Agreed ... now 52-50 UW with a 7:58 remaining.
I know I may get lambasted for this (mmmmm ... basted lamb) ... but I'm rooting for the Fuskers. Maybe it's because we're not in the same conference anymore and my hate for all things Red has waned, or maybe it's because I like to see a program that really has no basketball tradition start to establish itself. Hell ... even we have some stars we can point to in the past, many of whom went on to lucrative NBA careers (Cliff Meely, Chauncey, and hopefully Burks, Higgins, and Dre). If NU has any such stars in their past, I'm not aware of them.
But I'd like to see the Fuskers make the Dance. If they establish a consistently solid program within the B1G, I think we could have a nice little non-conference rivalry with them, since we don't play them in football anymore (save for a couple of games in about 5 years or so). And we may need a replacement for that regular OOC rival that KU has been, since Selfie now realizes that Coors ain't "Allen Fieldhouse West" any ****ing more.
That may be the case ... they've been a tough team to figure out. They started out 16-0 ... and then got into the thick of B1G play and promptly lost 5 out of 6 (including AT HOME to Northwestern :wow
. But they haven't lost since, and have quality wins over Michigan, Iowa (both on the road) and tOSU.
Wisky's loss raises the question ...
Who will be the #1 seeds in the Dance? Wisky was being suggested as the 4th #1 with Florida, Wich St., and Arizona until yesterday (although given yesterday's loss to UO and IF the Cats get knocked out in their first game in the Pac 12 Tourney, they are not assured of that seeding).
KU was likely, but I gotta think they're out of that consideration after losing to WVU (not saying they should be). And while UVa was getting some mention, them losing to Maryland probably knocked them out. So who? 'Nova? Obviously a lot of things can change between now and the end of the conference tourneys, but I can't remember a recent year where the consensus #1 seeds were so up in the air.
Who will be the #1 seeds in the Dance? Wisky was being suggested as the 4th #1 with Florida, Wich St., and Arizona until yesterday (although given yesterday's loss to UO and IF the Cats get knocked out in their first game in the Pac 12 Tourney, they are not assured of that seeding).
KU was likely, but I gotta think they're out of that consideration after losing to WVU (not saying they should be). And while UVa was getting some mention, them losing to Maryland probably knocked them out. So who? 'Nova? Obviously a lot of things can change between now and the end of the conference tourneys, but I can't remember a recent year where the consensus #1 seeds were so up in the air.
Last edited:
FrankRizzo
Active Member
I would LOVE to play Nebraska in the first round. Big ten rematch from last year, tim miles rematch, and Nebraska rematch.
We would have to make a run I think to be a high enough seed like a 7. I guess a 8/9 matchup is possible.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Monday:
BYU 22-10 (13-5) vs San Francisco 21-10 (13-5) WCC Tournament Semifinal (Las Vegas, NV): BYU is a very interesting case. Lunardi and Bracket Matrix both have BYU as an 11 seed holding one of the final byes, however Jerry Palm not only does not have BYU in the field - he doesn't even have them close (not in his First Four Out). So, it's hard to say what BYU needs to do. RPI is 33. If they truly are in the field as the vast majority seem to believe, beating San Francisco (RPI 64) will be enough to keep them in. Even a loss may not be devastating. If they're so far outside the field as Palm believes, then they likely would have to get an auto-bid to Dance. BYU has beaten Texas on a neutral court, won @ Stanford (put 112 on them) and beat Gonzaga. They also lost at Oregon in OT and to Iowa State by 2. However, BYU has also picked up 4 bad losses to Loyola Marymount, Pepperdine, Portland and Pacific. Their OOC SOS was 8th, and overall schedule 44. I tend to side on the side of teams who have shown on numerous occasions they can beat and compete with top competition. It's just a matter of whether 4 bad losses is 1 too many. Personally, give me BYU over Missouri or Arkansas.
BYU 22-10 (13-5) vs San Francisco 21-10 (13-5) WCC Tournament Semifinal (Las Vegas, NV): BYU is a very interesting case. Lunardi and Bracket Matrix both have BYU as an 11 seed holding one of the final byes, however Jerry Palm not only does not have BYU in the field - he doesn't even have them close (not in his First Four Out). So, it's hard to say what BYU needs to do. RPI is 33. If they truly are in the field as the vast majority seem to believe, beating San Francisco (RPI 64) will be enough to keep them in. Even a loss may not be devastating. If they're so far outside the field as Palm believes, then they likely would have to get an auto-bid to Dance. BYU has beaten Texas on a neutral court, won @ Stanford (put 112 on them) and beat Gonzaga. They also lost at Oregon in OT and to Iowa State by 2. However, BYU has also picked up 4 bad losses to Loyola Marymount, Pepperdine, Portland and Pacific. Their OOC SOS was 8th, and overall schedule 44. I tend to side on the side of teams who have shown on numerous occasions they can beat and compete with top competition. It's just a matter of whether 4 bad losses is 1 too many. Personally, give me BYU over Missouri or Arkansas.
Like Han Solo said, "I've got a bad feeling about this."
This is feeling eerily like 2010-2011 season.
Say Colorado beats USC but loses to Cal in the Pac 12 tourney. On paper, their resume still looks perfectly good for the NCAA Tourney and they probably won't be considered a bubble team by most sports entertainment sites, but they could easily be snubbed due to not having their star anymore and having a mediocre resume without him. Hope I'm wrong...
This is feeling eerily like 2010-2011 season.
Say Colorado beats USC but loses to Cal in the Pac 12 tourney. On paper, their resume still looks perfectly good for the NCAA Tourney and they probably won't be considered a bubble team by most sports entertainment sites, but they could easily be snubbed due to not having their star anymore and having a mediocre resume without him. Hope I'm wrong...
cubuffs85
Active Member
I love Slider's confidence!
You would have said the same 3 years ago. We all would have.
this isn't 3 years ago. As has been documented ad nauseum, we are much more likely to be in than that year. So this comparison is not helpful or a good point.
Overruled. Your argument, as is mine, is subjective.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
No.
Our RPI was 66 in 2011 with 4 bad losses (I'm being generous only counting 4) and one of the weakest OOCs. It's 31 now and CU has played the 13th toughest schedule with numerous quality wins and no bad losses. Our resume frankly couldn't be anymore different.
Last edited:
actually, it's not given the objective facts differentiating the two years.
wyobuff
Well-Known Member
We are going to be in the tourney, despite bubble watch's refusal to lock us (Btw, WTF).
Even with a loss v usc (which I dont think will happen), We will still be OK. They are calling "Utah" Our 1 bad loss for the year, and they will probably stay in the top 100 teams. We played a difficult noncon like mentioned before, and did what we had to do without spencer.
We also still have the option of taking the auto bid.
Even with a loss v usc (which I dont think will happen), We will still be OK. They are calling "Utah" Our 1 bad loss for the year, and they will probably stay in the top 100 teams. We played a difficult noncon like mentioned before, and did what we had to do without spencer.
We also still have the option of taking the auto bid.
cubuffs85
Active Member
Wasn't UW a worse loss from the metrics perspective? We were favored in the UW game (yes I know Spencer got injured) but wasn't Utah favored?
Feels nothing like it. They were a weak bubble team before the big 12 tourney started 3 years ago, and had to make a run to be considered. Their resume had NIT written all over it before the KSU win.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
ESPN needs to stop saying Utah or Washington for "bad loss". Neither qualifies.