What's new
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!

Lunardi- bracketology

Not sure i think we'd get killed, but it's not a match up I want in the first game
Yeah, I'd rather get NC State if given the choice - slightly better match ups. Regardless of who we play, if we're in the 8-9 seeding we flat-out need the Ski of the Charleston classic (or something damn close to him) if we're getting to the next game.
 
I'm just going to try and let the chips fall where they may. Ideally we get a good matchup and in SLC or San Jose, just hoping for one or the other. Whatever happens, happens.
 
So, to summarize:

Bracket Matrix: CU "in" in 87/88 brackets: average seed of 9.86

Palm: CU a 9 vs Cincinnati in Dayton

Lunardi: CU a 9 vs NC State in Lexington
 
Lesser of two evils, I'd probably prefer NC State in Lexington

It's tough, but I'd probably take Cincinnati, even given the location. Cincinnati just isn't very good. NCSU has underperformed all year and isn't a bad match up for us, though.

Hopefully since they both have these locations, they'll be wrong :thumbsup: But in all seriousness, gotta just take what we get. We don't have much excuse to complain about anything other than being shipped to "First Four" or snubbed entirely.
 
It's tough, but I'd probably take Cincinnati, even given the location. Cincinnati just isn't very good. NCSU has underperformed all year and isn't a bad match up for us, though.

Hopefully since they both have these locations, they'll be wrong :thumbsup: But in all seriousness, gotta just take what we get. We don't have much excuse to complain about anything other than being shipped to "First Four" or snubbed entirely.
What's the rationale for having the "First Four" in Dayton every year? Is it to make it very unappealing?
 
What's the rationale for having the "First Four" in Dayton every year? Is it to make it very unappealing?

It's not set in stone forever, but they will have it through 2015 according to current contract.

It's unappealing in terms of "sexy" locale, but Dayton is a community with nothing else going on and loves college basketball and has supported the "Play-in game" between the two 16's well over the years

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/n...ds-ncaa-first-four-through-2015.html?page=all
 
Pac-12 in the NIT:

3 seed Arizona State hosts Detroit.

4 seed Stanford hosts Stephen F. Austin

6 seed Washington at BYU

Other notable: 3 seed Denver hosts Ohio
 
Just looked back at Lunardi's last projection. He had Illinois playing..... Colorado State in KC. :lol:
 
Just looked back at Lunardi's last projection. He had Illinois playing..... Colorado State in KC. :lol:

:lol:

Illinois was definitely considered 8 or 9 seed material, we've drawn well compared to what could have been. Like....look at CSU...
 
How about Colorado getting the 3rd highest seed from the P12? After all that we went through, we essentially finished 3rd in the eyes of the committee.
 
Yep, it does seem fair. Glad Tad made RPI a priority after the 2010-11 season because "bracketology" is just a code word for RPI.

Plus it makes early season Buff bball so much more entertaining to watch and follow.
 
Plus it makes early season Buff bball so much more entertaining to watch and follow.

Absolutely. The Charleston Classic was huge for us. Also helped that the mountain schools like CSU, Air Force and Wyoming are all competitive.

The NCAA selection committee puts a high priority on road wins. This is from Mike Bobinski on why Virginia didn't make it:

“It was as unique a team sheet as I’ve ever seen in my four or five years on the committee and we spent a lot of time trying to sort that out to the best of our ability. They weren’t particularly strong on the road. They did have the Wisconsin win, but other than that they didn’t do a whole lot of damage away from home. You put that all together, they just didn’t pass muster as one of the 37 at-large teams for us.”
 
Absolutely. The Charleston Classic was huge for us. Also helped that the mountain schools like CSU, Air Force and Wyoming are all competitive.

The NCAA selection committee puts a high priority on road wins. This is from Mike Bobinski on why Virginia didn't make it:

“It was as unique a team sheet as I’ve ever seen in my four or five years on the committee and we spent a lot of time trying to sort that out to the best of our ability. They weren’t particularly strong on the road. They did have the Wisconsin win, but other than that they didn’t do a whole lot of damage away from home. You put that all together, they just didn’t pass muster as one of the 37 at-large teams for us.”

Right. And MTSU does pass that "test" with nothing but a home win over Ole Miss 4 months ago. So tired of the bullshitting from them, just tell it like it is -- bend over backwards to put some little guys in.
 
Right. And MTSU does pass that "test" with nothing but a home win over Ole Miss 4 months ago. So tired of the bullshitting from them, just tell it like it is -- bend over backwards to put some little guys in.

I feel for the Hoos. Have a lot of friends that went there. Their year was a lot like us back in 2010-11. The committee didn't reward them for their Top 50 wins, but focused on the losses. But if they put many of those bubble teams in the ACC and they don't come away with a winning record.
 
I feel for the Hoos. Have a lot of friends that went there. Their year was a lot like us back in 2010-11. The committee didn't reward them for their Top 50 wins, but focused on the losses. But if they put many of those bubble teams in the ACC and they don't come away with a winning record.

I don't feel UVA is anywhere near the snub CU received in 2011. Still, it's just more of the same BS from the committee in their explanations. If they're going to do this, then just nut up and give us the truth as to why, instead of acting like they actually think MTSU passes some "test" that UVA doesn't. Also, the A-10 with 5 bids, ACC with 4? Down year for ACC or not, give me a ****ing break.
 
Back
Top