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!
Pac-12 Bubble Watch Comparison
- Thread starter jgisland
- Start date
Deleted member 807
Guest
One would hope that Carlon, of all people, would get up for the Utah game.
[soapbox] I think Lunardi is smoking crack. Does anyone here think the Big Ten will get 8 teams in the dance? I don't. I think the Big East sending 9 teams to the dance is off the mark; the Big East is great, but I don't think they have the depth that they've had in past years. How about the SEC? Lunardi is picking 5 SEC teams! I wouldn't pick more than 4 from the SEC. Yeah, the PAC-12 is having a down year, but I don't see how they send less than 3 to the dance. The overall depth in the PAC-12 is certainly greater than the WCC and MWC. I don't think the top three teams from the WCC and MWC would have the league records that they do if they played in the PAC-12. FYI, my picks for the PAC-12 dance selections are Cal, Washington, and Arizona; my wishful thinking: Cal, Washington, and CU. [/soapbox]
CU moved ahead of Washington in the RPI today.
Cal looks like a lock. Arizona and Oregon are in the driver's seat over CU and UDub right now.
NashBuff
CSU Knob-Slobberer
Simply put, the Buffs should win out...that's the only way.
We need cal to win until they arrive in boulder. Hopefully they will be a top 30/25 rpi team then. There is our signature win. Win out and I dont see how they keep us out of the tourney again.
I do.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Love the chart. One thing I noticed -- Not sure if the RPI site you're looking at just has drastically different ratings for the time being, but I'm seeing Nebraska as 127th right now in the RPI, and thus no longer a "quality win" for Oregon.
I should really wait to post this until Monday. I get this stuff from 4 diff sites (realtimerpi.com, rpiforecast.com, kenpom.com and espn.com), they all update on diff timelines. ESPN (where I get the quality wins/losses) hasn't updated it yet for the weekend. I will update it again tomorrow when ESPN gets off their a** and updates the info.
CanadianDuck
Well-Known Member
It all depends on who wins the tourney. If a team like USC or OS were to sneak up and somehow win the tournament then I could see 1-2 teams being invited, but if a favorite like Cal wins it all then I am not sure they invite anyone else.
RK
UBL
CanadianDuck
Well-Known Member
I know its unlikely, but I was just throwing it out there.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Cal winning the tournament certainly would pose the most danger of the Pac being a 1 bid league, but we'll end up getting one at-large bid regardless, imo. I doubt this is a 3 bid league, but the good news for hopes of 3 bids is that it's not just the Pac that is down this year -- most of college basketball is down (although admittedly the Pac is definitely more down than most). Still plenty of time left to make a case for 3 bids.
And dude, ya gotta find a better example to use than USC for that, haha. How about "UCLA" or "Stanford"?
CanadianDuck
Well-Known Member
I felt like using a team that had no chance just for the hell of it. I realize there is a better chance of the world actually ending in 2012.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
It's been real evenly spread out since the Pac brought back the tournament in '02 (had it from '87 to '90 before that).
Since '02: Washington 3x, UCLA 2x, Oregon 2x, Arizona, Stanford, USC. Interesting that Arizona hasn't won it since the first year it was brought back (2002), and that Cal has never won it.
It's definitely more impressive to prove you're the best team over 18 games than getting hot for one weekend, but this year's tournament should be especially entertaining with so much parity and so much on the line.
Rushthecourt has CU one of the first 4 out as well. 2 PAC12 teams in, CAL with the auto bid and Arizona as one of the last 4 in.
- Last Four In: Arizona, Northwestern, Minnesota, NC State
- First Four Out: Texas, Miami, Colorado State, Colorado
- Next Four Out: Washington, Arkansas, Mississippi, Oregon
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Nice. I'll take being in the discussion at this point.
9 teams in from the B1G? I agree that it's the strongest conference this year, but holy ****...
At this point the Pac has a better chance of being a 1-bid league than it does of being a 3-bid league.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Georgia has crept up to 95th in the RPI thanks to their big win at Miss State this past weekend.
That definitely helps.
An absolute great read by Matt Norlander on the RPI and the NCAA selection process. There was a NCAA Mock Selection Process in Indianapolis this Thursday and Friday, very interesting stuff on how the process works and how the flawed RPI is still the main factor in teams getting in.
A couple interesting things:
The NCAA allows (but from what I interpreted, does not heartily endorse) any Selection Committee member to use Sagarin, KenPom, LRMC, Massey or any type of ratings system (including — WHAT — the Coaches’ Poll? It’s true, unfortunately). Those systems are not brought up on the big screen, unless by request, which never happened at our mock.
In the Mock CU doesn't get in, the P12 is a 2 big conf with CAL and Arizona getting in.
From that, here’s my conclusion: I don’t think NCAA Selection Committee members are using all available, valuable tools when picking and seeding teams. I think it’s too much information; there’s too much discussion, and the ease of the NCAA team sheets and the debates that come with it are too easy to cling to/subconsciously rely on. You have to open separate web browsers and constantly click band and forth between rankings systems. Why do that when you’ve got basic — and flawed — data in front of you that’s brought up simply by asking, “Can we get a side-by-side of Cincinnati and Middle Tennessee State?”
A couple interesting things:
The NCAA allows (but from what I interpreted, does not heartily endorse) any Selection Committee member to use Sagarin, KenPom, LRMC, Massey or any type of ratings system (including — WHAT — the Coaches’ Poll? It’s true, unfortunately). Those systems are not brought up on the big screen, unless by request, which never happened at our mock.
In the Mock CU doesn't get in, the P12 is a 2 big conf with CAL and Arizona getting in.
From that, here’s my conclusion: I don’t think NCAA Selection Committee members are using all available, valuable tools when picking and seeding teams. I think it’s too much information; there’s too much discussion, and the ease of the NCAA team sheets and the debates that come with it are too easy to cling to/subconsciously rely on. You have to open separate web browsers and constantly click band and forth between rankings systems. Why do that when you’ve got basic — and flawed — data in front of you that’s brought up simply by asking, “Can we get a side-by-side of Cincinnati and Middle Tennessee State?”
I think Washington killed Arizona's dream tonight.