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!

2012-13 Bubble Watch

BehindEnemyLines said:
where did the bubble watch go?
Click to expand...

They've been posted previewing and discussing each conference tournament day. We've just kind of reached the point where there's not a whole lot more to discuss with new developments as most bubble teams are just sitting around awaiting their fate now. There's one major game of note tomorrow: Ole Miss vs Florida in the SEC final. Ole Miss is 25-9, RPI 50. Last team in according to Bracket Matrix, 2nd to last team in according to Lunardi. Hard to say if a loss to Florida is enough to drop them out, though, especially if they lose a close one.

Other than that, it's sweating it out time for Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, Middle Tennessee, Boise State, La Salle, Southern Miss...and Ole Miss will be there too if they don't beat Florida for the auto-bid. Those are the true bubble teams. No telling what may happen. Virginia has the best wins of that group, and also the most bad losses. Kentucky really doesn't deserve to get in after losing to Vandy, but will their name carry them in? Southern Miss has merely two fringe 100 wins to offer, yet an RPI of 32 (Still no idea how it's this high). Middle Tennessee's one halfway decent win is Ole Miss and yet MTSU's RPI is 29. Meanwhile you've got Virginia sitting with an RPI of 75 (lowest RPI to ever get an at-large is 67) Virginia beat Tennessee during the season, so why should Tennessee get the nod over Virginia? Boise State is the "safest" of the group, IMO. They should be in.

It comes down to what does the committee value more? No good wins and minimal bad losses? Or lots of good wins and multiple bad losses? I've made my opinion quite clear -- give me the team with lots of good wins but bad losses any day over a team that simply hasn't beaten anybody. If Southern Miss can't beat a single team that will make the NCAA Tournament (or even the NIT) during the entire season, how can they possibly argue they should be in?
 
Last edited:
CVilleBuff said:
They've been posted previewing and discussing each conference tournament day. We've just kind of reached the point where there's not a whole lot more to discuss. There's one major game of note tomorrow: Ole Miss vs Florida in the SEC final. Ole Miss is 25-9, RPI 50. Last team in according to Bracket Matrix, 2nd to last team in according to Lunardi. Hard to say if a loss to Florida is enough to drop them out, though, especially if they lose a close one.

Other than that, it's sweating it out time for Kentucky, Virginia, Tennessee, Middle Tennessee, Boise State, La Salle, Southern Miss...and Ole Miss will be there too if they don't beat Florida for the auto-bid. Those are the true bubble teams. No telling what may happen. Virginia has the best wins of that group, and also the most bad losses. Kentucky really doesn't deserve to get in after losing to Vandy, but will their name carry them in? Southern Miss has merely two fringe 100 wins to offer, yet an RPI of 32 (Still no idea how it's this high). Middle Tennessee's one halfway decent win is Ole Miss and yet MTSU's RPI is 29. Meanwhile you've got Virginia sitting with an RPI of 75 (lowest RPI to ever get an at-large is 67) Virginia beat Tennessee during the season, so why should Tennessee get the nod over Virginia? Boise State is the "safest" of the group, IMO. They should be in.

It comes down to what does the committee value more? No good wins and minimal bad losses? Or lots of good wins and multiple bad losses? I've made my opinion quite clear -- give me the team with lots of good wins but bad losses any day over a team that simply hasn't beaten anybody. If Southern Miss can't beat a single team that will make the NCAA Tournament (or even the NIT) during the entire season, how can they possibly argue they should be in?
Click to expand...

See I'm in a different camp. I value the teams that have shown they can actually win games.
 
Medford M. said:
See I'm in a different camp. I value the teams that have shown they can actually win games.
Click to expand...

Give me the teams that beat Duke or Florida over teams that feast on beating Louisiana-Monroe and Troy every night. Also, in the case of Middle Tennessee and Southern Miss, it's not as though they're without their bad losses. Each of them have taken some bad losses.

I guess I fail to see how beating up on teams with sub-200 RPI's has any bearing on proving to me you're worthy of the Dance.

Of course, it also brings up the larger point that the weak conferences having conference tournaments is harmful as it runs the exact risk now being faced of Middle Tennessee with their 17-1 regular season Sun-Belt record being left out, while 10-10 Western Kentucky dances. You can make arguments for power conference tournaments as these offer opportunity to boost resumes for the many at-large teams, but the weak conferences would be wise to halt them.
 
Last edited:
Not sure how much a close game today will end up mattering. From what I've heard and read the committee basically has the brackets arranged Sat night and then on Sunday, they plan on the various contingency plans on what they'll do if a team that otherwise wouldn't gets in, does so.
 
cubuffs85 said:
Not sure how much a close game today will end up mattering. From what I've heard and read the committee basically has the brackets arranged Sat night and then on Sunday, they plan on the various contingency plans on what they'll do if a team that otherwise wouldn't gets in, does so.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's largely true. There was the case of Wisconsin winning the B1G Tournament 8-10 years ago, but the committee not even changing the seeding accordingly in time because it finished "too late" on Sunday. They might as well just pick names out of a hat with the SEC bubble teams if they decide to include 1 or 2 of them. Those resumes are all eerily similar.

God willing, our Buffs are sitting somewhere pleasant right now, and not about to be shipped 1500 miles away to play North Carolina for the right to play Indiana or something utterly ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
interesting how in the last decade conferences have all moved back a day to take all the meaningful sunday games you used to have (Big 8/Big XII championship game, for instance)....in favor of settling earlier on Saturday before the selections....so you didn't jobbed on seeds.

now, to quote the venerable San Pedro punk band the minuetmen.....there ain't sh*t on TV on selection sunday. god bless you D. Boon.
 
Mick Ronson said:
interesting how in the last decade conferences have all moved back a day to take all the meaningful sunday games you used to have (Big 8/Big XII championship game, for instance)....in favor of settling earlier on Saturday before the selections....so you didn't jobbed on seeds.

now, to quote the venerable San Pedro punk band the minuetmen.....there ain't sh*t on TV on selection sunday. god bless you D. Boon.
Click to expand...
My brother and I were just about this. The games on Sunday are just "plugged in" if they matter.
 
CVilleBuff said:
Lunardi has CU a 9, playing 8 NCSU in Lexington. Louisville is the 1...
Click to expand...
What's the % that Lunardi is right on locations/seeds? I always find it a bit misleading when it's advertised he gets 67 out of 68 right on avg(or w/e it is), since he's really only picking the at-larges.
 
cubuffs85 said:
What's the % that Lunardi is right on locations/seeds? I always find it a bit misleading when it's advertised he gets 67 out of 68 right on avg(or w/e it is), since he's really only picking the at-larges.
Click to expand...

This was what he did last year.

Lunardi correctly picked 67 of the 68 tournament teams, missing only by picking Seton Hall instead of Iona. He got the seed right for 35 of the 68 teams (51%). He either got the seed or was off by one for 61 of the 68 teams (90%). That may be where the real expertise lies. Of the seven he missed, he was only off by two seeds for six. Seton Hall he missed because he had them in the tournament.
 
jgisland said:
This was what he did last year.

Lunardi correctly picked 67 of the 68 tournament teams, missing only by picking Seton Hall instead of Iona. He got the seed right for 35 of the 68 teams (51%). He either got the seed or was off by one for 61 of the 68 teams (90%). That may be where the real expertise lies. Of the seven he missed, he was only off by two seeds for six. Seton Hall he missed because he had them in the tournament.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised it was 51%. I think I read most years he is in the low 40 % on seeds correct, but that may have been for something else with him
 
jgisland said:
This was what he did last year.

Lunardi correctly picked 67 of the 68 tournament teams, missing only by picking Seton Hall instead of Iona. He got the seed right for 35 of the 68 teams (51%). He either got the seed or was off by one for 61 of the 68 teams (90%). That may be where the real expertise lies. Of the seven he missed, he was only off by two seeds for six. Seton Hall he missed because he had them in the tournament.
Click to expand...
That's pretty impressive, it's his job though.

Edit: How do you delete posts?
 
Last edited:
jgisland said:
This was what he did last year.

Lunardi correctly picked 67 of the 68 tournament teams, missing only by picking Seton Hall instead of Iona. He got the seed right for 35 of the 68 teams (51%). He either got the seed or was off by one for 61 of the 68 teams (90%). That may be where the real expertise lies. Of the seven he missed, he was only off by two seeds for six. Seton Hall he missed because he had them in the tournament.
Click to expand...
I'm kind of surprised it's not better than that for the right seeds, but off by only one at 90% is pretty good.
 
CVilleBuff said:
Lunardi: Last Four In


First One Out









Palm: Last four in:
Villanova, St. Mary's, La Salle, Tennessee​
First four out:
Massachusetts, Alabama, Kentucky, Maryland​
Click to expand...

So is UVA beyond the first four out at this point? This morning on ESPN they did one of those blind resume things and it ended up being UVA and one of the small schools (maybe MTSU??) and UVA had the more favorable resume.
 
CarolinaBuff said:
So is UVA beyond the first four out at this point? This morning on ESPN they did one of those blind resume things and it ended up being UVA and one of the small schools (maybe MTSU??) and UVA had the more favorable resume.
Click to expand...

Greenberg just said they should get in. Here's a post from the UVA board:
lvl0.gif
Just saw a guy drop $30K on UVA to make the NCAA tournament ** -- doublek1229 Sun Mar 17 2013 5:24:23 PM

 
cubuffs85 said:
Greenberg might know a thing or two about "should getting in"
Click to expand...

Very true. None of the other 8 or so bubble teams come close to matching UVa's wins (that @ Wisconsin win looks damn fine right now), but those losses...man oh man...still, 21-11, 4th in ACC...they have a case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top