Discussion in 'Colorado Basketball Message Board' started by buffedup, Mar 15, 2011.
who is Nate Kreckman?
The Working Man with a face for radio...
# of wins is meaningless...in fact, it plays right into the hands of the SOS justification for leaving CU out.
I disagree. If CU was 24-10 instead of 21-13, with a 10-6 conference record or so they would have been in the tournament - no question.
Yes and if Colorado had been 20-14 with a .500 conference record in the Big 10 they would have been in ahead of Michigan State and Penn State who both had worse records than that.
Colorado is not a great team this year, they are a flawed team. The problem is that other teams that are in are more seriously flawed and that is why people are upset.
In the big picture it isn't going to make a difference to anyone except the schools involved because the last 4-6 teams in rarely ever do more than win one or two game before being eliminated but Colorado did deserve to have NCAA Tourney beside their name for this year, the committee screwed up and Lombardi is an idiot if he thinks differently.
or it would have been much harder to leave out since our rpi would have most likely been around 45 to 50. I wonder how much damage that last second shot that A&M put in cost us?
FWIW - Lombardi is defending us (and he also did so very vigorously last night on Channel 4) - Crackhead said we didn't belong.
He is trying to be the next Jim Rome
Thanks for the correction, makes sense. The Rome comparison with Crackhead is a good one. Doesn't care if it makes sense, say something to get people riled up and to pay attention to you. I won't even go into what I think of Rome.
The world needs another short guy who repeats humself over and over? When will a QB issue Kreckman a beatdown? Can we nominate the QB? Personally I'd like to see JaMarcus Russell pimp slap Kreckman.
Yes we did deserve to get in, especially over UAB, but Kreckman is also right. If we had played better in the first place it wouldnt have even been in the committe's hands. Losses to ISU, Oklahoma, San Fransisco. Giving away a big lead at Baylor, Higgins missing the defensive assignment at the end of the A&M game. We had our chances to make the selection proccess a mute point.
"A number of you have emailed me. You're saying "when are you going to lay the smack down on the Selection Committee for leaving out Colorado?" Emails coming in asking me to talk some junk. I watched the Selection Show. Not good, not good. Bad for college basketball. Bad for the sport. You figure that all the work they've done, all the preparation they've done, leading up to this one day, you don't want to come apart and have the wheels fly off. Doesn't help your cred when you leave out a team like Colorado. On occasion somebody will get run. Get smacked. If you want me to throw some junk at the Committee, here goes. They won't be invited to my annual smack-off. Not enough cred, not enough goods. Too much hack, not enough cred. I'm going to invite them to appear on my annual hack-off. Out."
[now read this like a telegram (Bad for basketball. STOP. Bad for the sport. STOP.) without saying the STOPS and you've got Rome]
Yep. We should have just gone 31-0. Since we didn't, it's our fault the committee took less deserving teams instead...
I guess I didn't hear that...
Nate wreckman sucks.
I never said we had to win every game, but losing 13, several of which we should have won, did not help our cause. No its not our fault the committee did a bad job, but it is our fault that we put them in a position to do a bad job. 1 or 2 more wins this year and we are a lock to get in. Its not the committee's fault that we lost to teams who we are better then or that Higgins missed that assignment against A&M or that we couldnt protect a big lead in against Baylor or that we couldnt keep KU off the offensive glass in Boulder. We had a very good season and clearly should have gotten in but you cant put this all on the committee, some of the blame needs to go to the team.
Yeah, and that was the point Kreckman was trying to make about Colorado. He was saying they needed to win more games and Vic was calling him out on that, saying more wins than who? Michigan State? USC? It is a pretty low ranking stat, but Kreckman was trying to make it sound all important.
Now you're phrasing it in a way I can agree with.
One side note: Are you sure it was Cory's mistake against A&M? I can't remember if Boyle told them to go over the top of all screens or to switch on all screens in that situation. If the were supposed to fight over the top, it was on Cory. If it was a switch, it was someone else. Cory definitely played that like a switch (and got plowed out of there with a moving pick).
How do you know? Saying 1 or 2 more wins means Colorado is a lock is foolish. EVERYBODY was saying Colorado was already a lock, and was even off of the bubble. Your argument holds no water. There is no way to know what the tipping point was.
It was actually Duffalt's mistake. Higgins was covering the guy who hit the 3, he got screened and Duffalt was supposed to switch on the screem but never did.
My argument holds no water? So your saying the team should take no balme in this? It was somehow the committees fault that we lost 13 games this year? Please explain...
And no not everyone was saying we were a lock. And yes 2 more wins would have made us a lock. I made a thread before sunday saying that we were nota lock, 4 of 32 "experts" predicted in their final brackets that we would not get in, and even those people who thought we would assumed we would be one of the final 4 in. Much of the backlash against the committee isint so much about us not getting but rather who got in ahead of us. If it had been va tech and alabama instead of uab and vcu their would not be nearly as much anger.
How do you know? Prove it. You have no quantitative proof to make such a statement. The whole point of the ****storm that has come about is that there is no concrete criteria with which teams can look to for what they should be doing. At large selection is a complete unknown to everybody and is subject to human biases and politicking as much as many other factors, which is what makes the whole process a complete farse. This is not any better than the BCS at it's core.
There is one major flaw in your argument. It assumes that some definable and defensible criteria is being used by the selection committee. But since the selection criteria has not defined the criteria, there is no real way to know what thing or things were needed for CU to be extended an invite. Any "what if" situation relating to USF, Harvard, ISU, A&M, Neb, Ou, Baylor, or OOC SOS is pure speculation.
Unfortanelty im not a psychic so i cant prove it. Its just common sense. And I agree the selection proccess is flawed, but again, is it the committee's fault that we lost 13 games this year?
I'm pretty sure the selection committee was mute when it came to voting for the buffs already
well, c'mon? of course because they win more games than they really did. the point Lombardi makes according to the original post is CU won more games than *other teams*, which IS pointless because teams play different schedules and CU's OOC was very easy. and those other teams did make the NCAA.
pure number of wins is meaningless. if anything, the events of Sunday should tell everyone this.
we got hosed, don't get me wrong. but, deserving teams get jobbed every year. better to try and think about how/why than postulate hypothetical scenarios where CU wins all the close losses and still wins all the close wins. that's unrealistic homerism.
stop assuming we would get in if we had won two more games. Where is the assume police? oh wait that is you.
against ATM, the kid buried the shot. maybe we got lost on switches, but c'mon. blame now?
Separate names with a comma.