Charlie Creme's last bracketology has UConn ....

[YKCornelius]

None of which constitutes a case for a higher seed.

—Every team can be described as “having to play their schedule”.
—Raw W-L record means little. South Dakota State is 27-3 and beat Creighton and is only projected as a 9 seed. Grand Canyon is 28-2 and won't be higher than a 12 seed.
—Getting floor-mopped by a top team does not earn a higher seed.

If anything, an 8 seed is a tad generous now that I look more closely. Again, the best that can be said for them is that they “held serve” against weaker foes and didn't lose to anyone worse than the Jackrabbits.

Plebe, while "Getting floor-mopped by a top team does not earn a higher seed" is snarkily correct, it apparently doesn't hurt either. Case in point is South Carolina who got "floor-mopped" not once, but twice by top teams, yet will still be a #1 seed, possibly #1 overall.

Regarding Creighton holding serve and not losing to anyone worse than a NCAA tournament-bound team, that can't be said of some teams that have been given a seeding above the Blue Jays, can it? For instance, #7 seeded Oklahoma State, who lost to last place (5-25) Houston and 11th place Kansas during Big 12 play, after playing a non-conference schedule at the beginning of the year that would make Kim Mulkey blush with pride.

Here's the eyeball test issue that is conveniently ignored by the bracketologists, and frustrating to fans of beautiful, team basketball: Creighton has been "judged" by 31/32 AP voters and 31 WBB coaches over the last six weeks as being somewhere between the 21st and 26th best team in WCBB. That should correspond to a 6 or 7 seed. In fact, the latest AP Poll showed Creighton appearing on 27 of the 32 ballots from voters all across the country, with five voters ranking them between #14 and #19.

So, while you might be playing Devil's Advocate to posters who wonder why the Blue Jays - with an experienced team that went to the NCAA's last year as a #7 seed (despite losing to every ranked team they played and not making it to the BET finals) and wound up losing a very close 2nd round game to UCLA at Pauly Pavilion - are currently looking at a #8 seed with bracketologists, I would say their consternation is well founded.

Count me in with those that think the #22 team in the country should be - at worst - a #7 seed.

 

[YKCornelius]

Not me not understanding why Charlie referenced Providence in his last two updates. LOL. The Ivies are rotating hosting sites each year. Cornell hosts in 2026 and Dartmouth in 2027.

BRS24, perhaps because the Ivy League tournament is being held at Brown University this year, and Brown is located in Providence, Rhode Island?

 

[Conndog]

The keys for Uconn this year are Paige, Azzi, and Aubrey. Those 3 Seniors play at their best level and Uconn will win the Championship.

Aubrey is a huge extra asset for her defense and rebounding. She can make life difficult for scorers like Juju Watkins, or Madison Booker, or any of the other tough forwards. Paige is going to lead the team, and I really feel all her teammates are going to make sure they get this year’s title. Paige, Azzi, Sarah- if all 3 go off, let alone Ash and Jana and KK and Kaitlyn, they are going to be unstoppable. Too many weapons, plus defense is really good- shooting can go cold some times, but the defense is dependable and deadly.

 

[yhun89]

Sorry but I disageee. Don’t want to see ND at any point. I don’t care how much they are struggling; they’ve had our number for the past few years and really seem to rise up to the occasion when they play Uconn.

I say bring on any team BUT SCar or ND again!

Knowing ND, they’ll start magically shooting 60% from 3 against us.

 

[Plebe]

Plebe, while "Getting floor-mopped by a top team does not earn a higher seed" is snarkily correct, it apparently doesn't hurt either. Case in point is South Carolina who got "floor-mopped" not once, but twice by top teams, yet will still be a #1 seed, possibly #1 overall.

Lots of problematic takes here.

Actually, it did seem to hurt them, because they were #2 in the first reveal and then, after losing to us, were down to #5 in the 2nd reveal.

Whether their losses hurt them enough to lower their seeding relative to other teams in the final bracket is a separate question as it requires comparing their resume, with all its high and low points, to those of other teams. I notice you fail to mention how well they've performed since losing to us. I don't know why folks always want to reduce the entire resume to just one thing and disregard everything else.

Regarding Creighton holding serve and not losing to anyone worse than a NCAA tournament-bound team, that can't be said of some teams that have been given a seeding above the Blue Jays, can it? For instance, #7 seeded Oklahoma State, who lost to last place (5-25) Houston and 11th place Kansas during Big 12 play, after playing a non-conference schedule at the beginning of the year that would make Kim Mulkey blush with pride.

Yes, Oklahoma St has two bad losses and one horrible loss, but you conspicuously fail to mention their quality wins over TCU, Kansas St, Baylor, W. Virginia and Utah. That's FIVE wins that are far better than anything on Creighton's resume. Again we see the imperative of not cherry picking only the worst or the best result. Gotta broaden the lens, hold multiple thoughts in the head at once, and factor in the good with the bad.

Here's the eyeball test issue that is conveniently ignored by the bracketologists, and frustrating to fans of beautiful, team basketball: Creighton has been "judged" by 31/32 AP voters and 31 WBB coaches over the last six weeks as being somewhere between the 21st and 26th best team in WCBB. That should correspond to a 6 or 7 seed. In fact, the latest AP Poll showed Creighton appearing on 27 of the 32 ballots from voters all across the country, with five voters ranking them between #14 and #19.

So, while you might be playing Devil's Advocate to posters who wonder why the Blue Jays - with an experienced team that went to the NCAA's last year as a #7 seed (despite losing to every ranked team they played and not making it to the BET finals) and wound up losing a very close 2nd round game to UCLA at Pauly Pavilion - are currently looking at a #8 seed with bracketologists, I would say their consternation is well founded.

No, there is no “should correspond” between polls and seeds. This a classic case of why the polls aren't used and shouldn't be used to determine seeding. The polls are notorious for overrewarding teams for simply avoiding losses. It is one of their well-known flaws.

Last year's tournament seeding and results are irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Creighton got destroyed by UCLA in THIS season on a neutral court. And also got completely destroyed by Kansas State, a projected 5 seed. And their best win is over a bubble team. It's nice that they don't have any bad losses to non-tournament teams and that's the main reason they're as high as an 8.

 

[Cornell Lt]

Knowing ND, they’ll start magically shooting 60% from 3 against us

The huskies rank #100 in 3pt fg defense, allowing team's to average 29.4 % shooting.

 

[visitingcock]

Lots of problematic takes here.

Actually, it did seem to hurt them, because they were #2 in the first reveal and then, after losing to us, were down to #5 in the 2nd reveal.

Whether their losses hurt them enough to lower their seeding relative to other teams in the final bracket is a separate question as it requires comparing their resume, with all its high and low points, to those of other teams. I notice you fail to mention how well they've performed since losing to us. I don't know why folks always want to reduce the entire resume to just one thing and disregard everything else.


Yes, Oklahoma St has two bad losses and one horrible loss, but you conspicuously fail to mention their quality wins over TCU, Kansas St, Baylor, W. Virginia and Utah. That's FIVE wins that are far better than anything on Creighton's resume. Again we see the imperative of not cherry picking only the worst or the best result. Gotta broaden the lens, hold multiple thoughts in the head at once, and factor in the good with the bad.



No, there is no “should correspond” between polls and seeds. This a classic case of why the polls aren't used and shouldn't be used to determine seeding. The polls are notorious for overrewarding teams for simply avoiding losses. It is one of their well-known flaws.

Last year's tournament seeding and results are irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Creighton got destroyed by UCLA in THIS season on a neutral court. And also got completely destroyed by Kansas State, a projected 5 seed. And their best win is over a bubble team. It's nice that they don't have any bad losses to non-tournament teams and that's the main reason they're as high as an 8.

K State might be projected as a five seed now but if Ayoka LEE WAS UNINJURED the could have been a two seed.

 

[Vowelguy]

The huskies rank #100 in 3pt fg defense, allowing team's to average 29.4 % shooting.

I've been saying it for years: WCBB stats are often meaningless because of the vast talent gaps that still exist. For a truer picture, one needs to limit the data to games against good opponents.

 

[Plebe]

K State might be projected as a five seed now but if Ayoka LEE WAS UNINJURED the could have been a two seed.

Speculative, but even if so, refer back to the truism that “Getting floor-mopped by a top team does not earn a higher seed".

 

[YKCornelius]

Lots of problematic takes here.

Actually, it did seem to hurt them, because they were #2 in the first reveal and then, after losing to us, were down to #5 in the 2nd reveal.

Whether their losses hurt them enough to lower their seeding relative to other teams in the final bracket is a separate question as it requires comparing their resume, with all its high and low points, to those of other teams. I notice you fail to mention how well they've performed since losing to us. I don't know why folks always want to reduce the entire resume to just one thing and disregard everything else.


Yes, Oklahoma St has two bad losses and one horrible loss, but you conspicuously fail to mention their quality wins over TCU, Kansas St, Baylor, W. Virginia and Utah. That's FIVE wins that are far better than anything on Creighton's resume. Again we see the imperative of not cherry picking only the worst or the best result. Gotta broaden the lens, hold multiple thoughts in the head at once, and factor in the good with the bad.



No, there is no “should correspond” between polls and seeds. This a classic case of why the polls aren't used and shouldn't be used to determine seeding. The polls are notorious for overrewarding teams for simply avoiding losses. It is one of their well-known flaws.

Last year's tournament seeding and results are irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that Creighton got destroyed by UCLA in THIS season on a neutral court. And also got completely destroyed by Kansas State, a projected 5 seed. And their best win is over a bubble team. It's nice that they don't have any bad losses to non-tournament teams and that's the main reason they're as high as an 8.

Plebe, you twice use the term "fail to mention" as though I was making a case against South Carolina or against Oklahoma State. I was not. Rather, I was sniping at your quips back to the previous poster and used both teams as examples against your snarkiness.

I believe that most of the WCBB community would disagree with you on your view of not using the polls as a measuring stick against how well projected seedings are done each year leading up to Selection Sunday. The evidence, based on NCAA reveals from when they were started a few years back, shows that the committee has been pretty much aligned with both polls since the onset. Not that the committee was using polls, mind you, but rather that their synchronicity with AP and Coaches polls suggested that, by and large, all three groups that get paid for evaluating WCBB teams were generally on the same page. At least with regards to the top 16 seeds.

Nobody I know (certainly not me) thinks the polls should be used as a factor in determining seeding. That would be silly. However, to use the polls as a measuring stick against bracketology projections seems prudent and reasonable. More to the point of my posts, it seems to be a very good basis for debating the wisdom behind bracketologists' seedings.

Your stance that polls are "notorious for overrewarding teams for simply avoiding losses" is nonsensical conjecture that can't be supported. In fact, it is so nonsensical, it can't be refuted either! To label such nonsense as "one of their well-known flaws" makes me wonder if there are others who share such perceptions.

I will give you credit, however, for pointing to the optics of Creighton's bad losses to #10 KSU in mid-November and to #1 UCLA during the Christmas break. They were indeed bad. Clearly the AP pollsters concurred with the bad optics, since they dropped Creighton from their pre-season #21 position and didn't start voting for them again until mid-January. That said, the same pollsters brought the Blue Jays back into the Top 25 over a month ago (10 Feb) and have been hovering them between #22 and #23 ever since. The same is/was true for the Coaches poll.

In closing, you've made it clear that you believe the Blue Jay's #8 seed is "generous". I take that to mean you think a #9 (or worse) seed is more appropriate. I beg to differ. I believe a #7 seed would be worthy. I guess we will see in a few days time who the selection committee agrees with. In the meanwhile, if you would be so kind, please enlighten as to exactly what seed you think the committee will end up placing Creighton.

 

[fomalhaut]

If the tournament committee goes only by Quad 1 record, Connecticut will be a 2 seed. If they take NET ranking and many other factors (such as recent play) into consideration, it's hard to see how they are not a 1 seed. A 29-point loss at home (SC) should weigh much more heavily than a 4-point road loss.

Creighton is 22nd in both polls, but 30th in NET. That makes an 8-seed both reasonable and likely.

 

[Plebe]

Your stance that polls are "notorious for overrewarding teams for simply avoiding losses" is nonsensical conjecture that can't be supported. In fact, it is so nonsensical, it can't be refuted either! To label such nonsense as "one of their well-known flaws" makes me wonder if there are others who share such perceptions.

“Nonsensical,” quite the hefty accusation! Yet it's been frequently mentioned on the Boneyard, including last year with great angst when UConn's ranking fell below teams that weren't playing good teams at the time, or whenever LSU's ranking tends to rise during a soft OOC merely as a result of other teams' losses.

Here's an SI article:
“Every Monday’s ranking changes feel formulaic. Every team that loses gets dropped a few spots, with almost zero regard for the strength of the opponent or circumstances surrounding the loss. If a team doesn’t lose, it’ll move up, again with almost zero regard for how that team actually played that week.”

I will give you credit, however, for pointing to the optics of Creighton's bad losses to #10 KSU in mid-November and to #1 UCLA during the Christmas break. They were indeed bad. Clearly the AP pollsters concurred with the bad optics, since they dropped Creighton from their pre-season #21 position and didn't start voting for them again until mid-January.

Your facts are off. Creighton was dropped from the poll after week 1 following their loss to S. Dakota State. They were already unranked when they played KSU and UCLA.

In closing, you've made it clear that you believe the Blue Jay's #8 seed is "generous". I take that to mean you think a #9 (or worse) seed is more appropriate. I beg to differ. I believe a #7 seed would be worthy. I guess we will see in a few days time who the selection committee agrees with. In the meanwhile, if you would be so kind, please enlighten as to exactly what seed you think the committee will end up placing Creighton.

For full context, I said: “If anything, an 8 seed is a tad generous.” I think their “true” seed would put them at a low 8 or a 9, but since the committee is allowed to bump a team up or down a seed line for procedural purposes, they could end up as high as a 7 or as low as a 10. I believe the committee for the first time this year will release its 1-68 true seed listing, so we should know exactly how they ranked them. My estimate is in the 31-35 range.

 

[Cornell Lt]

I've been saying it for years: WCBB stats are often meaningless because of the vast talent gaps that still exist. For a truer picture, one needs to limit the data to games against good opponents.

The 3 pt fg defense is not good against all kinds of teams both good and bad

 

[visitingcock]

I’ve got

Speculative, but even if so, refer back to the truism that “Getting floor-mopped by a top team does not earn a higher seed".

mop prints all over my back

 

[Plebe]

If the tournament committee goes only by Quad 1 record, Connecticut will be a 2 seed. If they take NET ranking and many other factors (such as recent play) into consideration, it's hard to see how they are not a 1 seed. A 29-point loss at home (SC) should weigh much more heavily than a 4-point road loss.

The committee will take into consideration all data from across the season ... and still, most likely, put us at #5. The latest reveal of Feb. 27 makes it hard to predict otherwise.

Quad 1 record isn't the only thing weighing against UConn's prospects of a 1 seed. The fact that we lost to Tennessee, a projected 5 seed, also matters. The only team ahead of us with a loss that bad is USC, who did more than enough to offset it by beating UCLA twice plus winning at Storrs.

But again ... what's the difference between #4 and #5 overall? It's literally just a number next to the team's name. We still have to win the games.

 

[YKCornelius]

“Nonsensical,” quite the hefty accusation! Yet it's been frequently mentioned on the Boneyard, including last year with great angst when UConn's ranking fell below teams that weren't playing good teams at the time, or whenever LSU's ranking tends to rise during a soft OOC merely as a result of other teams' losses.

Here's an SI article:
“Every Monday’s ranking changes feel formulaic. Every team that loses gets dropped a few spots, with almost zero regard for the strength of the opponent or circumstances surrounding the loss. If a team doesn’t lose, it’ll move up, again with almost zero regard for how that team actually played that week.”



Your facts are off. Creighton was dropped from the poll after week 1 following their loss to S. Dakota State. They were already unranked when they played KSU and UCLA.



For full context, I said: “If anything, an 8 seed is a tad generous.” I think their “true” seed would put them at a low 8 or a 9, but since the committee is allowed to bump a team up or down a seed line for procedural purposes, they could end up as high as a 7 or as low as a 10. I believe the committee for the first time this year will release its 1-68 true seed listing, so we should know exactly how they ranked them. My estimate is in the 31-35 range.

Plebe, I will give you props for digging out that SI article, although let's agree it was about the Men's AP poll, not the Women's nor the Coaches.

I also give you props for going back and researching when Creighton dropped from the rankings. While true it happened BEFORE the KSU game, it doesn't reduce the factual accuracy of my statement. When they dropped is irrelevant. What is relevant, and the point of my statement that you ignored, is that the pollsters agreed with the bad optics of Creighton's losses, but later restored the Blue Jay's ranking in mid-January where they've been ever since. Said differently, the pollsters view of the non-UConn losses were factored into the ranking of Creighton from the beginning and continue to be factored to this day. That's the bottom line.

I will put you down as a broad stroke "low 8 or a 9". If Creighton ends up anywhere in the 8 or 9 seed cohort, more props to you.

Finally, don't take "nonsensical" as an affront to you. It applies only to those that goofy statement you made. The large majority of your posts are sound and logical, and I often agree with them and find them very insightful. Nothing personal.

Peace. Go UConn.

 

[Plebe]

I’ve got

mop prints all over my back

SC is a lot more accustomed to dishing it out than taking it. This was an odd season with the outlier data points, but SC got in some good mopping practice against Texas, TCU, Oklahoma...

 

[BobbyJ]

The committee will take into consideration all data from across the season ... and still, most likely, put us at #5. The latest reveal of Feb. 27 makes it hard to predict otherwise.

Quad 1 record isn't the only thing weighing against UConn's prospects of a 1 seed. The fact that we lost to Tennessee, a projected 5 seed, also matters. The only team ahead of us with a loss that bad is USC, who did more than enough to offset it by beating UCLA twice plus winning at Storrs.

But again ... what's the difference between #4 and #5 overall? It's literally just a number next to the team's name. We still have to win the games.

I think you may underestimate how exciting it can be for these fans to have t-shirts made up to celebrate a #1 seed.

 

[Plebe]

I also give you props for going back and researching when Creighton dropped from the rankings. While true it happened BEFORE the KSU game, it doesn't reduce the factual accuracy of my statement. When they dropped is irrelevant. What is relevant, and the point of my statement that you ignored, is that the pollsters agreed with the bad optics of Creighton's losses, but later restored the Blue Jay's ranking in mid-January where they've been ever since.

No, sorry, it proves your statement factually inaccurate.

You stated:

“I will give you credit, however, for pointing to the optics of Creighton's bad losses to #10 KSU in mid-November and to #1 UCLA during the Christmas break. They were indeed bad. Clearly the AP pollsters concurred with the bad optics, since they dropped Creighton from their pre-season #21 position and didn't start voting for them again until mid-January.”​

You stated that the “optics” of the KSU and UCLA losses were the cause of Creighton's drop from the preseason ranking, which is factually false. There's no plausible deniability here. Judge Judy had a saying about my leg and not telling me it's raining.

The rest of your post is just tendentious narrative-spinning. But I'll refrain from calling it “goofy.”

 

[TC22]

If the tournament committee goes only by Quad 1 record, Connecticut will be a 2 seed. If they take NET ranking and many other factors (such as recent play) into consideration, it's hard to see how they are not a 1 seed. A 29-point loss at home (SC) should weigh much more heavily than a 4-point road loss.

Creighton is 22nd in both polls, but 30th in NET. That makes an 8-seed both reasonable and likely.

It did. SC dropped 3 spots in the poll. Since that time they beat 3 ranked teams which included a 19 pt win over the #1 team in the country.

That said, I do think there are 5 teams that could be a 1 seed.

 

[DefenseBB]

Plebe, I will give you props for digging out that SI article, although let's agree it was about the Men's AP poll, not the Women's nor the Coaches.

I also give you props for going back and researching when Creighton dropped from the rankings. While true it happened BEFORE the KSU game, it doesn't reduce the factual accuracy of my statement. When they dropped is irrelevant. What is relevant, and the point of my statement that you ignored, is that the pollsters agreed with the bad optics of Creighton's losses, but later restored the Blue Jay's ranking in mid-January where they've been ever since. Said differently, the pollsters view of the non-UConn losses were factored into the ranking of Creighton from the beginning and continue to be factored to this day. That's the bottom line.

I will put you down as a broad stroke "low 8 or a 9". If Creighton ends up anywhere in the 8 or 9 seed cohort, more props to you.

Finally, don't take "nonsensical" as an affront to you. It applies only to those that goofy statement you made. The large majority of your posts are sound and logical, and I often agree with them and find them very insightful. Nothing personal.

Peace. Go UConn.

The denialism on this forum at times runs to the absurd. The simple fact is Creighton will make the NCAAT as a probable 8 seed Which equates to a 29-32 seeding. Unlike the voters, the committee ranking is based on rules and protocol while the writers or the assigned coaches who vote use methods that aren’t disclosed. We do know some writers vote for mid major teams not because they truly believe the team is top 25 but because they want to reward the team for having a good season. How is that for integrity?
Many of us who actually follow this process simply try to advise many of you on this forum how it actually works vs the conjuring you and others seem bent on insisting. I am sorry if our explanations hurt your sensibilities. But the good news is in 2 days we will know for certain. Hopefully you and others will understand and accept the seeding based on rules and protocol instead of perception but I am not optimistic.

As far as the Big East as a good league goes, contextually they are the 5th best conference of 31, so yes they are better than most but when compared to how the Men’s Big East competes against the P4, the women and their coaches fall woefully short- they can‘t Recruit Top HS players, can’t keep their good players who transfer out to P4, can’t keep their good coaches and can’t get Quality P4 players to transfer in. Being a 2 bid conference is not exactly an endorsement of the coaching acumen.

Again the point of my retort is explaining how the committee actually follows rules and metrics whereas the voters don’t disclose their methods.
Don’t be mad, but please try to understand.

 

[YKCornelius]

The denialism on this forum at times runs to the absurd. The simple fact is Creighton will make the NCAAT as a probable 8 seed Which equates to a 29-32 seeding. Unlike the voters, the committee ranking is based on rules and protocol while the writers or the assigned coaches who vote use methods that aren’t disclosed. We do know some writers vote for mid major teams not because they truly believe the team is top 25 but because they want to reward the team for having a good season. How is that for integrity?
Many of us who actually follow this process simply try to advise many of you on this forum how it actually works vs the conjuring you and others seem bent on insisting. I am sorry if our explanations hurt your sensibilities. But the good news is in 2 days we will know for certain. Hopefully you and others will understand and accept the seeding based on rules and protocol instead of perception but I am not optimistic.

As far as the Big East as a good league goes, contextually they are the 5th best conference of 31, so yes they are better than most but when compared to how the Men’s Big East competes against the P4, the women and their coaches fall woefully short- they can‘t Recruit Top HS players, can’t keep their good players who transfer out to P4, can’t keep their good coaches and can’t get Quality P4 players to transfer in. Being a 2 bid conference is not exactly an endorsement of the coaching acumen.

Again the point of my retort is explaining how the committee actually follows rules and metrics whereas the voters don’t disclose their methods.
Don’t be mad, but please try to understand.

I am not sure who your retort is pointed towards, but since you responded to my post, it seems reasonable to conclude it is directed - at least partially - towards me. Presuming your retort is towards me, I am certainly not mad, nor are my sensibilities hurt. However, if it is towards me, then your characterizations of me "conjuring" is off-base. As is your grouping me with other Boneyarders, who I presume the rest of your post regarding the Big East is directed towards.

Perhaps it is not pointed towards me after all, because none of my previous posts call into question any aspect of the committee's decisions. Nor have have my posts spoken to any aspect of the process the committee follows. Rather, my previous posts in this thread speak to the mindset of bracketologists vs the mindset of pollsters. Surely you are not suggesting the mindset of bracketologists and the committee are the same?

Furthermore, I certainly understand how the committee works, and has worked over the years. It is a hobby of mine each year to try to figure out what specific criteria was given more weight over others for each individual team, once the results are revealed. Pure speculation on my part, but a lot of fun.

Of course, I will "accept the seeding". To suggest anyone would not is silly. Will I understand it? Almost certainly yes, but possibly not if an explanation is not forthcoming from the committee to any specific questions I might have. Will I agree with the seeding 100%? Meh - probably not. Will I accept speculation from posters on this forum such as yourself regarding the group mindset of the committee as fact? Nah, no chance. Your speculation is no different than anyone else's.

Speculation from everyone leading up to Selection Sunday is what makes the Boneyard great. Peace. Go Huskies!

 

[YKCornelius]

No, sorry, it proves your statement factually inaccurate.

You stated:

“I will give you credit, however, for pointing to the optics of Creighton's bad losses to #10 KSU in mid-November and to #1 UCLA during the Christmas break. They were indeed bad. Clearly the AP pollsters concurred with the bad optics, since they dropped Creighton from their pre-season #21 position and didn't start voting for them again until mid-January.”​

You stated that the “optics” of the KSU and UCLA losses were the cause of Creighton's drop from the preseason ranking, which is factually false. There's no plausible deniability here. Judge Judy had a saying about my leg and not telling me it's raining.

The rest of your post is just tendentious narrative-spinning. But I'll refrain from calling it “goofy.”

Plebe, really? You contend my statement is "factually false" because it didn't identify all of the factors resulting in Creighton dropping out of the Top 25? Or is it "factually false" based on the lack of temporal specificity of when the drop occurred vis-a-vis all of the bad optic factors involved?

Whatever hair you are trying to split with your incorrect inferences, you missed the point completely as you try to pivot the conversation towards the factual accuracy of my statement. Once again, the point is that the same polls weighed bad optics to remove Creighton from the rankings in early November and then weighed good optics to start giving them votes in mid-January and eventually re-instate them into the rankings in mid-February. The optics of the entire year - good and bad - are behind their last five Top 25 rankings. That's the point.

Clearly I am wasting my time here. I give up. Peace out. Go UConn.

 

[FormerCTrez]

2019 Elite 8 in Albany



My favorite play is with the score UConn 69-63........about 10:20 into the you tube video, or 3.20 left on 4th quarter game clock.
Geno's face
Kyla Irwin on the bench
all 3 coaches, CD, Shea, and Lister stood and the fist pumps.

Fun memories. Thanks for the replay.

 

[Plebe]

Okay so when is this selection show happening?

 

[BRS24]

Late last night update from CC.

The Ivy League needed a close and competitive high-level game between Princeton and Harvard on Friday in the tournament semifinals to remain a three-bid conference. Mission accomplished. Harmoni Turner scored an Ivy Madness-record 44 points to help the Crimson edge the Tigers in a thrilling, well-played game. Princeton's performance, even in a loss, is enough to keep the Tigers in the field. They are now the Last Team In and Virginia Tech remains as the First Team Out. Observable component, or what most people have referred to over the years as the "eye test," is one of the 11 official criteria the selection committee utilizes. Princeton looked worthy of an NCAA bid, and it keeps the Ivy League's hopes for three bids alive. Another highly competitive game in Saturday's final between Harvard and regular-season champion Columbia might still be necessary for three to make it come Selection Sunday, but Friday's results were the best-case scenario for the Ivy.​

​

Interesting that the Ivy may have more bids than the Big East.

Big10 - 12, SEC - 10, ACC - 9, Big12 - 7, Ivy - 3, Big East - 2, A 10 - 2.

 

[HuskyNan]

I think you may underestimate how exciting it can be for these fans to have t-shirts made up to celebrate a #1 seed.

 

[CL82]

This doesn't seem worth starting a new thread:

 

[ABCDFE]

No, sorry, it proves your statement factually inaccurate.

You stated:

“I will give you credit, however, for pointing to the optics of Creighton's bad losses to #10 KSU in mid-November and to #1 UCLA during the Christmas break. They were indeed bad. Clearly the AP pollsters concurred with the bad optics, since they dropped Creighton from their pre-season #21 position and didn't start voting for them again until mid-January.”​

You stated that the “optics” of the KSU and UCLA losses were the cause of Creighton's drop from the preseason ranking, which is factually false. There's no plausible deniability here. Judge Judy had a saying about my leg and not telling me it's raining.

The rest of your post is just tendentious narrative-spinning. But I'll refrain from calling it “goofy.”

Man just learned a new word today. Will start to use Tendentious around the house with my spouse. Kind of Reminds me a bit of that character from Severance, Mr. Milichick. Well done.

 

[PJCLaw]

It applies to us as well. No one can say we earned a 1 seed with our schedule.

It's not the schedule that hurt, it's the loss to Tenn and/or ND. I believe if our only losses were to USC and ND, we'd be a No. 1 seed, because then we would have beaten two SEC teams on the road.