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!

Conference Auto-Bid & Bubble Watch

BuffG said:
The NET is going to get tweaked. It still factors in far more qualitative data than the RPI ever did. Seems to me that the NET has a pretty good understanding of the top 35 or so teams. The commitee only picks about half the field of the 68. The other half are auto-bids give or take a few. No matter what they do, there’s going to be people crying about their bubble team because it’s good for TV and fans are irrational.

But if a team with a .500 or worse record gets an at-large bid, I will be LMFAO and trashing the system just like everyone else.
Click to expand...
This type of situation (a .500 record from a big name school from a power conference) is why you have a selection committee. Easily solved on Selection Sunday as long as that committee isn't a slave to the NET. It's a useful tool and a guide, but at a certain point they have to say that a team that is rated around the same but has a much better record is more deserving.
 
torerobuff said:
Fundamental disagreement with me then. Give me more Woffords and UNCGs and less 16-15 Texases or 8-12 in conference Ohio States. The primary point is to win games against whoever you play.
Click to expand...

I don’t know. I mean, losing to Duke by 10 is better to me than beating Cal by 3. Especially if they’re both OOC games.
 
Birch1 said:
I don’t know. I mean, losing to Duke by 10 is better to me than beating Buena Vista by 40. Especially if they’re both OOC games.
Click to expand...
Really? I don't really care who you can lose to. I think it's ridiculous that losing to someone can help your resume.
 
P.S. I also believe in rewarding teams for scheduling good opponents. So how I'd probably do it is having a sliding scale for how much a loss hurts your rating -- but a loss has to hurt you at least a little bit.

And a win should also never hurt you. Just that some shouldn't have much value while others have a ton of value.
 
Buffnik said:
Really? I don't really care who you can lose to. I think it's ridiculous that losing to someone can help your resume.
Click to expand...

I get the point. And for most games it’s sound. But there’s got to be some benefit to not stacking your OOC with cupcakes (besides remaining diabetes-free).
 
crosby87 said:
Xavier close in on bid with a tough win over the Jays.
Click to expand...
Probably knocks Creighton out. They were at #54 and now will drop while finishing with an 18-14 record. Xavier might have more work yet to do. Entered the day at #72 with a 17-14 record. Finishing 18-15 with a NET in the 60s is not gonna get it done, I don't think.
 
Birch1 said:
I get the point. And for most games it’s sound. But there’s got to be some benefit to not stacking your OOC with cupcakes (besides remaining diabetes-free).
Click to expand...

Although, I suppose the benefit is off-book so-to-speak: more fans turnout, better player and team experience, growth, etc.
 
It's "so weird" that they have to put Musselman's wife on TV like 10000 times per game. I mean is this 1860? No one has seen an interracial marriage before?
 
KSU beats TCU. I still think TCU makes the Dance at 20-13, but with a NET that's going to end up around 50 they are very bubbly.
 
What if they just used the NET/RPI as a tool, but used the "who do we actually think is good" test to actually decide who gets in?

A team that's 18-14 has no business in the tournament. At no point during the season did that team show the ability to win games consistently, and they shouldn't have to opportunity to get hot and make a sham of the title.
 
Medford M. said:
What if they just used the NET/RPI as a tool, but used the "who do we actually think is good" test to actually decide who gets in?

A team that's 18-14 has no business in the tournament. At no point during the season did that team show the ability to win games consistently, and they shouldn't have to opportunity to get hot and make a sham of the title.
Click to expand...

Unless maybe their best player was out the first 14 games they lost.
 
If you go 18-14 and get hot enough to win 6 games over three weekends over some pretty good opponents it's safe to say that's not really a sham. That's effing impressive.
 
torerobuff said:
Fundamental disagreement with me then. Give me more Woffords and UNCGs and less 16-15 Texases or 8-12 in conference Ohio States. The primary point is to win games against whoever you play.
Click to expand...

I think Arizona State is more deserving (even with a couple goofy losses) than the two SoCon teams, Belmont, Florida, or Texas.
 
St. John's (#64 NET) fell to 21-12 by getting absolutely demolished by Marquette. No shame at all in losing to that team. But playing on your home court at MSG with your season on the line... and you lose 86 to 54? If I was on the committee, I wouldn't put them in the Dance on principle.
 
For the 1st time in my life as a college hoops fan...

Go Kansas!

I so want to hear the media douches debate whether a 16-16 UT team belongs in the Dance and then see what the committee does. That 16-16 would also be 8-12 against Quad 1 teams. I think they're one of the 40 best teams in the country and I could see them advancing if they get in. But on principle, I couldn't put a team in that didn't have a winning record.

Major "get the popcorn out" bubble conversation.

So juicy that even @Goose and Swan are probably also yelling Go Kansas!
 
Buffnik said:
For the 1st time in my life as a college hoops fan...

Go Kansas!

I so want to hear the media douches debate whether a 16-16 UT team belongs in the Dance and then see what the committee does. That 16-16 would also be 8-12 against Quad 1 teams. I think they're one of the 40 best teams in the country and I could see them advancing if they get in. But on principle, I couldn't put a team in that didn't have a winning record.

Major "get the popcorn out" bubble conversation.

So juicy that even @Goose and Swan are probably also yelling Go Kansas!
Click to expand...

I tried. Couldn’t do it. Hook ‘em.
 
Seton Hall dominated Georgetown tonight. The Hall is probably on the right side of the bubble now. Got to think the Hoyas are on the NIT bubble now.
 
How 'bout dem Jayhawks!!!

UT falls to 16-16 -- entered with #38 NET and that won't drop much by losing to #20 NET KU in Kansas City.
 
Buffs move to #68 in NET

Remaining possible opponents:
Washington - #40
Oregon - #56
ASU - #63
 
Buffnik said:
How 'bout dem Jayhawks!!!

UT falls to 16-16 -- entered with #38 NET and that won't drop much by losing to #20 NET KU in Kansas City.
Click to expand...

I had some trouble looking it up, but so far as I can tell a team with a record .500 or lower has never received an at-large bid. I know that no team that's lost more than 14 has ever received an at large bid (a 14 loss team has received an AL bid just 11 times- 5 of those were in 2011). 24 teams have made the dance with .500 or worse record (all as auto-bids). none have won a game.

If UT makes it in, it will literally be unprecedented.
 
Here's an infographic on how NET is calculated.

CU dropping after the Cal win likely has a lot to do with the Net Efficiency as well, that number had to slide down a bit for that narrow, sloppy win.

Ds72JOCWwAUvPIK.jpg:large


Also, read the bottom, the quadrant/tier system is used for team info sheets. The NET is really about sorting teams into bins, more than it is about worrying about teams moving from #68 to #72 in the rankings.

The quadrant system will still be used on team sheets to give context to wins and losses. The system sorts results in the following manner:
Quadrant 1: Home 1-30, Neutral 1-50, Away 1-75.
Quadrant 2: Home 31-75, Neutral 51-100, Away 76-135.
Quadrant 3: Home 76-160, Neutral 101-200, Away 135-240.
Quadrant 4: Home 161-353, Neutral 201-353, Away 241-353.
Click to expand...
 
My initial feeling is that NET (perhaps intentionally) will incentivize stronger OOC scheduling, to include going on the road against a quality team.

Maybe this will help us in being able to schedule home and home series with other quality teams that tend to fall in the Quad 1/Quad 2 grouping.
 
As an old Big East fan, it's kind of painful for me to watch UConn be this messed up. They made a great move by hiring Dan Hurley, but the real issue is that they are so disconnected from their fans in the AAC while their AD is losing like $30M a year by trying to be a football school.

They need to do like Villanova and be an FCS school in football or drop it completely. Join the Big East. End the fantasy of joining the B1G or ACC because it's never going to happen. Start playing Nova, G'town, St John's, Providence and Seton Hall again. Even the members who were added to create a new Big East (Marquette, DePaul, Butler, Xavier, Creighton) are going to draw more fans to the basketball arena than anyone besides maybe Temple in the AAC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top