cubuffs85
Active Member
I'd love to go to the Final Four in my backyard!:rofl:
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!
Bracketology 2013/2014
- Thread starter whatthebuff
- Start date
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
I follow college basketball as closely as anyone and I had to look up who won the nit last year. Unless you're an ascending program coming from complete oblivion and using it as a springboard for future Dances, it's useless. CU turning around after two years of Dancing and going to the nit would cause recruits to pause and result in our momentum halting. No one gives a **** if you make Madison Square Garden or even win it. Being 68 is far, far better than 69.
You always want to make the tournament. Course with all of the young players that CU has, I can see some positives with a long NIT tournament run, as opposed to possibly being one and done in the NCAA's. I think the experience of the NCAA bracket would be much, much preferable though.
Course you don't know what will happen. You could win a couple games in the NCAA's and reach the Sweet 16. Or be one and done in the NIT as well
Course you don't know what will happen. You could win a couple games in the NCAA's and reach the Sweet 16. Or be one and done in the NIT as well
You should never be torn on this. NIT is better than nothing, but understand what it is. Would you be torn on whether you'd rather CU make a 16-team football playoff or miss out on that to go play in the Beef O'Brady Bowl?
cubuffs85
Active Member
Why be happy with the NIT when we could dominate the CBI?
wyobuff
Well-Known Member
Agreed. No one give a **** about the NIT. It doesnt matter if you get a play in game or if you get drilled the first weekend. You were still in the big show, you still had a chance at a sweet 16 or final 4.
Being NIT champ is like being the worlds tallest midget - Nice distinction, but it doesnt mean ****.
Being NIT champ is like being the worlds tallest midget - Nice distinction, but it doesnt mean ****.
Wasn't that one of Descartes' universal truths?
Was it Stanford? Going off memory.
Edit: it was Baylor. This link should give you an idea how little people care about NIT. It has been updated with last years info.
http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/10096527
Last edited:
Baylor.
The only reason I know is that I remember laughing at their PR spin this year that they have had more post-season tournament wins than any program in D1 over the past several recent years.
wyobuff
Well-Known Member
Bubble Watch Still has us in the "Should be in" category.
Colorado [20-8 (9-6), RPI: 26, SOS: 13] Colorado would have been a done deal had it managed to beat Arizona on Saturday. Before the game, the Buffs' odds looked good: The Wildcats had been struggling through their post-Brandon Ashley adjustment period, after all, and CU hadn't lost a home game since just after Spencer Dinwidde's season-ending ACL tear (to UCLA on Jan. 16). Instead, the Wildcats were commanding, and so Colorado will have to wait for lockdom. The bad news? Their last three Pac-12 games make up a brutal stretch: at Utah, at Stanford, at Cal. There is also some concern that the selection committee could devalue the big Dec. 7 Kansas win, which came in large part thanks to Dinwiddie's brilliance. But if CU can handle business on the road at Utah, it is hard to imagine a team with their RPI and SOS numbers not getting into this field in three weeks' time.
Colorado [20-8 (9-6), RPI: 26, SOS: 13] Colorado would have been a done deal had it managed to beat Arizona on Saturday. Before the game, the Buffs' odds looked good: The Wildcats had been struggling through their post-Brandon Ashley adjustment period, after all, and CU hadn't lost a home game since just after Spencer Dinwidde's season-ending ACL tear (to UCLA on Jan. 16). Instead, the Wildcats were commanding, and so Colorado will have to wait for lockdom. The bad news? Their last three Pac-12 games make up a brutal stretch: at Utah, at Stanford, at Cal. There is also some concern that the selection committee could devalue the big Dec. 7 Kansas win, which came in large part thanks to Dinwiddie's brilliance. But if CU can handle business on the road at Utah, it is hard to imagine a team with their RPI and SOS numbers not getting into this field in three weeks' time.
cubuffs85
Active Member
Yeah not surprising, many people make too much good or bad of a single game. I do agree here however, that had we beaten UofA, that would've been nearly enough.
Lt.Col.FrankSlade
Well-Known Member
Buffs need to find a way to win at least one (1) of the last three, plus a game in the tournament.
3 straight regular season losses and a first round Pac-12 tournament exit would not be good.
3 straight regular season losses and a first round Pac-12 tournament exit would not be good.
cubuffs85
Active Member
Pac-12 loss should only matter if they lose to a team like USC or Wazzu. Winning against any of these teams also won't do much.
CVilleBuff
Well-Known Member
Won't be moving us back, either. Brennan is very conservative with his bubble watch, only moving teams forward to "should be in" and "lock" when he's taking into account the worst case scenarios happening for each team. We can sit on "should be in" forever if we don't get another win, but he won't bring us back to "work to do" because he feels our body of work already justifies "should be in". With that said, go get us some wins, Buffs. Lock this up.
That would probably be our best outcome actually if we have to lose one. Would probably bump Utah into the top 100.
New bracket today.
Colorado #10 vs #7 Oklahoma in San Antonio, in the West bracket. Not too bad actually. Creighton is the two seed which I think we could handle if we could upset OU.
Pac-12 Seeds
#1 UofA
#5 UCLA
#8 ASU
#9 Stanford
#10 Cal
#10 CU
Colorado #10 vs #7 Oklahoma in San Antonio, in the West bracket. Not too bad actually. Creighton is the two seed which I think we could handle if we could upset OU.
Pac-12 Seeds
#1 UofA
#5 UCLA
#8 ASU
#9 Stanford
#10 Cal
#10 CU
Last edited:
Its ok, if he returns next year (which by watching twitter, seems like more and more people are telling him to do) we could be competing for a 1-2 seed.
I know you know enough to know that doesn't matter. (Dre, tons of other examples outside of our team)
Oh I know. Spencer is going to do what he thinks is right. It takes one phone call from an agent or a GM to get him to leave, just talking about what I have seen.
Because we've been so good in the past at defending lights-out 3 pt shooters like McDermott?
Given two seeds of: Creighton, Kansas, Duke, and Wisconsin which one would you rather have?
There's a difference between having a preference, versus stating we could 'handle' a certain team. And to answer your question, I would prefer Kansas. More pressure on them to redeem themselves, and they have been up and down. But I still think any of those 2 seeds are almost certainly a loss. Would rather face the Shockers as a #1 seed.
agree with you there. I disagree on the other part though. KU is coming on strong, talking heads on ESPN think KU could steal a #1 seed from WSU, it will depend how they close it out. They just won their 10th Big XII title in a row.
Would love the Oklahoma matchup. Some of the seedings of the teams above us make no sense to me.