Bracket first impressions

[bballnut90]

Incredible stuff. I don’t understand the hate for this man. He simply predicts how the committee will view each team and provides us with so much insight and discussion throughout the season. And he’s really really good with his predictions but some are convinced he hates certain teams/programs which is never the case

 

[cancontent]

Incredible stuff. I don’t understand the hate for this man. He simply predicts how the committee will view each team and provides us with so much insight and discussion throughout the season. And he’s really really good with his predictions but some are convinced he hates certain teams/programs which is never the case

Fans are always going to have an axe to grind with the media "experts". I still remember Mel Kiper getting blasted by NFL GMs during one draft back in the 80s. It only enhanced his brand and helped to spawn this "expert" industry. If Creme wasn't getting some form of hate, he wouldn't be doing his job well enough.

 

[southie]

The more I look at the different metrics, it certainly seems like Notre Dame has the most reasons to complain about their seeding.

 

[triaddukefan]

The more I think about it, the anger builds up more. Michigan State should have been the #7 seed in our bracket as opposed to Vanderbilt. We owe the Spartans a good ol fashioned butt whipping for that debacle in 2009. .

 

[WBBTakeover]

The more I think about it, the anger builds up more. Michigan State should have been the #7 seed in our bracket as opposed to Vanderbilt. We owe the Spartans a good ol fashioned butt whipping for that debacle in 2009. .

We owe them for allowing that individual who will not be named to leave their school in 2007.

I also don't like the potential R32 match-up with Vanderbilt. Shades of 2023.

 

[jdote33]

I hope Jeff Walz doesn't fail us this year. We need the Hailey Van Lith vs Louisville matchup.

In my head before yesterday I had a feeling they would create a scenario for this matchup. Lol. I don't love it for Hailey Van Lith as Walz is a great coach and they have a bunch of guards to throw at her. I also want her to continue to increase her draft stock.

Overall I thought the committee did well. I've said it elsewhere, I just think South Carolina got by far the easiest road to the final 4 and really to the championship. I think if you look at the other number 1s , even the 4 5 teams could possibly be a threat . Tennessee, Ole Miss, a healthy Kansas State, even Kentucky with Amoore. Atleast I can talk myself into some of these teams. I like Alabama a lot, they just have been no threat to SC in recent years. Maryland....I just don't see it. Even some 1 8 matchups can be intriguing. Georgia Tech started the year so well and still has a lot of talent. Illinois played USC and UCLA tough. But Utah and Indiana.... I could go on. And I respect the SC program a lot, just feel like we aren't going to get a lot of fun matchups with them. No disrespect to Duke. Honestly even though I don't think they are the best team, because of their path unless there are some major upsets I think SC will repeat.

 

[triaddukefan]

Head scratchers abound this year, but this can't be any different or worse than what we saw on the men's side with UNC making it in over West Virginia and Indiana who had been Q1 records.

 

[cancontent]

Yeah, the selection committee's efforts to justify it had me howling yesterday.

 

[Plebe]

No, it definitely isn't. And I don't know what actually would be. But I do know I'm going to borrow your phrase, because it's chef's kiss perfect.

Same. A new phrase just got slipped into my high-rotation playlist.

 

[Plebe]

Baylor's Q1 record of 3-6 but getting to host a sub-regional over teams like Ole Miss (Q1 record of 6-9), Tennessee (Q1 record of 6-8) and Alabama (Q1 record of 5-7) is a real head-scratcher.

It's rarely just about the Q1 record, especially when it's a close call. Gotta look at their worst losses as well, for example. (In fact I'm certain it was this “bad loss” criterion that put USC below Texas due to their loss to Iowa.)

Baylor's only non-Q1 loss was to Oklahoma St.
Ole Miss had a Q3 loss to TAMU.
Tennessee had a Q4 loss to Georgia.
Alabama's worst loss was Q2 but it was to a non-tournament team (Florida).

You also have to look under the hood at the Q1 record because not all those opponents are made equal . Four of Baylor's 6 Q1 losses were to UCLA and TCU.

 

[Plebe]

Incredible stuff. I don’t understand the hate for this man. He simply predicts how the committee will view each team and provides us with so much insight and discussion throughout the season. And he’s really really good with his predictions but some are convinced he hates certain teams/programs which is never the case

Has all your time on the Boneyard taught you nothing?!

Creme's little bracketology racket is clearly just an elaborate hoax to provide cover for the committee's blatant bias!

It's obvious that the blatantly biased NCAA joined forces with the blatantly biased ESPN to hire the useful minion Creme to trick us all into thinking that the committee's decisions are justified!

You see, it all makes sense if you just put on your “deep state” detection goggles /s

 

[Sifaka]

This isn’t rocket surgery.

Adorable missed mixed megaphone metaphor. Is that like cutting an elongated muskrat's space vehicle?

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I have the brackets correct.

I’m saying it should have been a factor in the committee’s reasoning to avoid those matchups.

Sorry, I thought you said Texas was #4, they were #3. You did have the matchups correct. #2 South Carolina vs. #3 Texas and #1 UCLA vs. #4USC if the #1's all win out. It was late and I wasn't paying attention.

 

[triaddukefan]

ND got a raw deal. They beat 3,4 and 5, 10. Split with 7

 

[southie]

It's rarely just about the Q1 record, especially when it's a close call. Gotta look at their worst losses as well, for example. (In fact I'm certain it was this “bad loss” criterion that put USC below Texas due to their loss to Iowa.)

Baylor's only non-Q1 loss was to Oklahoma St.
Ole Miss had a Q3 loss to TAMU.
Tennessee had a Q4 loss to Georgia.
Alabama's worst loss was Q2 but it was to a non-tournament team (Florida).

You also have to look under the hood at the Q1 record because not all those opponents are made equal . Four of Baylor's 6 Q1 losses were to UCLA and TCU.

I mean, you don't start looking at the other quads until you first review Q1 records. For me, the wins should be given more credit than penalties for losses.

Out of Baylor's 27 wins, 13 were Q4 wins; that's nearly half of their total wins.

 

[BruinGold]

I don't worry about fairness too much. But, I did look at the USC/UConn corner of the bracket and wince. Besides the overall 4/5 matchup/rematch in the elite 8, there's a very dangerous Iowa team lurking in there, too.

 

[visitingcock]

Incredible stuff. I don’t understand the hate for this man. He simply predicts how the committee will view each team and provides us with so much insight and discussion throughout the season. And he’s really really good with his predictions but some are convinced he hates certain teams/programs which is never the case

I have nothin against him, I just think his November projections are bs. Long about mid- february they start lining up

 

[BRS24]

A lot of moving parts in the season, from the beginning (less competitive games), to conference games, to conference tourney. Here's a look at his way to early predictions (2), to first week of season, two NCAA reveals, his final, and the final final bracket.

I also have a compilation of CC, HHS, TheAthletic, reveals, however it's huge, so perhaps it will be a look back after the tourney is over. It might give us a topic to debate over the looooonnnggg summer.

 

[ConnMotors]

Apparently there is no set way of selecting teams. Saying that an S curve was used. Really! I’m not a Notre Dame fan but they deserved better. By pitting two sets of #1 seeds in the Final Four makes it so you have two different conferences making it to the finals. Is that good or bad? Then what happened to teams from the same conference not facing each other. Here I am for the past two weeks moving teams around because I thought that this was one requirement. Again as it turns out not true.

 

[bballnut90]

Apparently there is no set way of selecting teams. Saying that an S curve was used. Really! I’m not a Notre Dame fan but they deserved better. By pitting two sets of #1 seeds in the Final Four makes it so you have two different conferences making it to the finals. Is that good or bad? Then what happened to teams from the same conference not facing each other. Here I am for the past two weeks moving teams around because I thought that this was one requirement. Again as it turns out not true.

I don’t think separating conferences for Final Four matchups was necessary considering it’s rare all 4 number 1 seeds get there. And I know it’s subjective but I thought the seedings were relatively clear based on resumes that we’d see UCLA at 1, South Carolina at 2, Texas 3 and USC 4

 

[Plebe]

Apparently there is no set way of selecting teams. Saying that an S curve was used. Really! I’m not a Notre Dame fan but they deserved better. By pitting two sets of #1 seeds in the Final Four makes it so you have two different conferences making it to the finals. Is that good or bad? Then what happened to teams from the same conference not facing each other. Here I am for the past two weeks moving teams around because I thought that this was one requirement. Again as it turns out not true.

It's only certain scenarios where they try to avoid (or are supposed to try to avoid) having conference rivals face off. When it comes to the #1 seeds they have always just stuck to the true order regardless of conference. Recall 2013 when Notre Dame and UConn were overall #2 and #3 and they didn't try to prevent a national semifinal meeting between us.

 

[FanInNC]

Notre Dame was a surprise as a 3 to me. UNC was a surprise as a 3 as well. I figured they were a 4.

I get that Vandy could be a tricky second round game for Duke but to me they got the easiest 3 possible. The Vandy game is at home, gotta take care of business and then you get the benefit of the weakest 3 in the field. Don’t hate that path for Duke.

For State, I haven’t watched Michigan State so I don’t have a strong feeling on that potential match up. The idea of playing LSU is scary to me. I know everyone doubts them, but they are talented and physical. State struggled when they can’t control the boards, I don’t love that match up. Hoping FSU can knock them off personally.

I am glad State avoided USC and SC, if the Pack can make it to the elite 8 I’d rather see UCLA than either of those 2.

 

[Plebe]

ND got a raw deal. They beat 3,4 and 5, 10. Split with 7

I've certainly seen the committee penalize teams in recent years for the “late season fade” but I thought #9 was the lowest ND would land. No way should they be behind LSU and UNC. But then again they got matched with what I consider the most favorable 2 seed ... so that's a tradeoff I would take in the unthinkable scenario of being a ND fan

 

[Alydar]

Apparently there is no set way of selecting teams. Saying that an S curve was used. Really! I’m not a Notre Dame fan but they deserved better. By pitting two sets of #1 seeds in the Final Four makes it so you have two different conferences making it to the finals. Is that good or bad? Then what happened to teams from the same conference not facing each other. Here I am for the past two weeks moving teams around because I thought that this was one requirement. Again as it turns out not true.

I thought I was the only one that missed the thread about the change in keeping conference foes apart. I used to read all the new policy/procedure rules but it's a big dog and pony show now. Why not just let Charlie do it. Charlie admitted several years ago, (after failing badly on his own) that he attended the Committee's early meetings and mock seeding sessions and kept in touch. It's a win-win. He gets clicks and the NCAA's seedings agree with Charlie in the end so they MUST be reliable.
I think what annoys me the most is when people ask the NCAA "why this team and not that team"? There is always a plausible response but each one is unique to that matchup and they end up contradicting each other. In one case it's NET, in another it's bad losses and in a third it's quad 1 wins.

"I never knew a man could tell so many lies, he had a different story for every pair of eyes."*

The top 16 are the only ones with a chance. The rest are there for the party. And I'm talking about the school admins. If the idea is to show wcbb at it's best then have a double elimination tournament with 16 teams. The TV revenues would be much more lucrative and lots of expense would be avoided.

* - Neil Young

 

[WBBTakeover]

Notre Dame was a surprise as a 3 to me. UNC was a surprise as a 3 as well. I figured they were a 4.

I get that Vandy could be a tricky second round game for Duke but to me they got the easiest 3 possible. The Vandy game is at home, gotta take care of business and then you get the benefit of the weakest 3 in the field. Don’t hate that path for Duke.

For State, I haven’t watched Michigan State so I don’t have a strong feeling on that potential match up. The idea of playing LSU is scary to me. I know everyone doubts them, but they are talented and physical. State struggled when they can’t control the boards, I don’t love that match up. Hoping FSU can knock them off personally.

I am glad State avoided USC and SC, if the Pack can make it to the elite 8 I’d rather see UCLA than either of those 2.

 

[southie]

I've certainly seen the committee penalize teams in recent years for the “late season fade” but I thought #9 was the lowest ND would land. No way should they be behind LSU and UNC. But then again they got matched with what I consider the most favorable 2 seed ... so that's a tradeoff I would take in the unthinkable scenario of being a ND fan

I mean, LSU (SEC) could not be seeded in South Carolina's or Texas' regions. So, it was UCLA's or USC's regions. And, with Oklahoma (SEC) also on the 3-line, I get why LSU is where they are. But, as we've both stated, no way Notre Dame should have been behind North Carolina.

 

[TheFarmFan]

ND got a raw deal. They beat 3,4 and 5, 10. Split with 7

It's only certain scenarios where they try to avoid (or are supposed to try to avoid) having conference rivals face off. When it comes to the #1 seeds they have always just stuck to the true order regardless of conference. Recall 2013 when Notre Dame and UConn were overall #2 and #3 and they didn't try to prevent a national semifinal meeting between us.

The problem I have with the committee's rationale, "we just follow the S curve," is that they set the S curve. They're not blind to the consequences when they're ranking teams, and it's clearly a subjective art, not an objective science. It'd be one thing if they used BCS-style computer rankings to determine seeds, but when they're slotting in every team, acting like they're blind about what that means is a little too "lady doth protest too much" for me.

I mean, LSU (SEC) could not be seeded in South Carolina's or Texas' regions. So, it was UCLA's or USC's regions. And, with Oklahoma (SEC) also on the 3-line, I get why LSU is where they are. But, as we've both stated, no way Notre Dame should have been behind North Carolina.

 

[BRS24]

I'm probably late to the game, but just realized that if either UCLA/SC or Texas/USC were swapped, we'd have the possibility, on chalk, that the finals could have been either all B10 or all SEC.

If coaches decide to go public with their displeasure, it impacts the team, becomes the media circus topic, etc etc. IMO that's why Geno has said in public, we go where we're told to go. Many years ago, he was irate at seeding, probably the infamous #2 seed in 1998 when Stanford got the #1 seed, and he's also called out the committee a few other times.

 

[Plebe]

The problem I have with the committee's rationale, "we just follow the S curve," is that they set the S curve. They're not blind to the consequences when they're ranking teams, and it's clearly a subjective art, not an objective science. It'd be one thing if they used BCS-style computer rankings to determine seeds, but when they're slotting in every team, acting like they're blind about what that means is a little too "lady doth protest too much" for me.

What strikes me as funny about this situation is that normally folks are accusing the committee of rigging the seeding/bracketing in order to create or avoid certain matchups. But here it seems folks are upset at them for not doing so.

 

[Plebe]

I mean, LSU (SEC) could not be seeded in South Carolina's or Texas' regions. So, it was UCLA's or USC's regions. And, with Oklahoma (SEC) also on the 3-line, I get why LSU is where they are. But, as we've both stated, no way Notre Dame should have been behind North Carolina.

We're talking about the "true" seed list, not any bracketing adjustments made for conference conflicts.

However they for some reason didn't mind putting Duke and UNC in the same reigonal even though they were both among the first 4 teams selected from the same conference.