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

[Plebe]

All these posts over likely not being a one seed, seems trivial compared to Creighton for example, and how unfair it would be for Creighton to be an eight seed. I might agree a little bit with posters that there is a slight bias in favor of the P4 conferences in regards to seeding and the number of teams getting into the tournament, but I dont think that applies to UCONN being a one versus two seed.

I'd be curious to hear your reasoning for calling an 8 seed “unfair” for Creighton. Their best win (by far) is over Nebraska, a projected 10 seed. That's their only win over an at-large-caliber team. And then they have a loss to South Dakota State, a projected 9 seed.

What in their resume would justify seeding them any higher than 8? The best thing one can say about them is they didn't lose to anyone outside Quad 1. But wins over the likes of Villanova and Green Bay and Syracuse and Seton Hall don't do much. (And let's not even talk about how they looked against UCLA and Kansas State.)

 

[maxw]

I still maintain that the Committee can do weird and unexpected things but based on the criteria laid out by the NCAA, UConn looks to be a 2 seed

Quad 1 wins

UConn 6-3
South Carolina 16-3
Texas 14-3
UCLA 14-2
USC 13-3

Then there’s this

View attachment 107719 View attachment 107720

The committee also considers NET strongly (where UConn is No. 1), the primary selection metric which
"takes into account game results, strength of schedule, game location, net offensive and defensive efficiency, and the quality of wins and losses. It's both a results-driven and predictive metric."

 

[uconnfan68]

I'd be curious to hear your reasoning for calling an 8 seed “unfair” for Creighton. Their best win (by far) is over Nebraska, a projected 10 seed. That's their only win over an at-large-caliber team. And then they have a loss to South Dakota State, a projected 9 seed.

What in their resume would justify seeding them any higher than 8? The best thing one can say about them is they didn't lose to anyone outside Quad 1. But wins over the likes of Villanova and Green Bay and Syracuse and Seton Hall don't do much. (And let's not even talk about how they looked against UCLA and Kansas State.)

They had to play their schedule. They were 22-3 vs everyone not named UConn. And 1 of the 3 was to the #1 team.

 

[Plebe]

They had to play their schedule. They were 22-3 vs everyone not named UConn. And 1 of the 3 was to the #1 team.

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.

 

[johnhelvete]

I'd be curious to hear your reasoning for calling an 8 seed “unfair” for Creighton. Their best win (by far) is over Nebraska, a projected 10 seed. That's their only win over an at-large-caliber team. And then they have a loss to South Dakota State, a projected 9 seed.

What in their resume would justify seeding them any higher than 8? The best thing one can say about them is they didn't lose to anyone outside Quad 1. But wins over the likes of Villanova and Green Bay and Syracuse and Seton Hall don't do much. (And let's not even talk about how they looked against UCLA and Kansas State.)

I admit to mostly going off of what Kim Adams said during the broadcast of the BE Championship Game, that and Creighton's record. Perhaps I shouldnt have used the word "unfair". My point was that arguably the difference between a 7 seed and an 8 seed is more significant than a 2 seed and a 1 seed, I could see Creighton giving TCU a tight game for example, while Creighton probably has no chance against a 1 seed. And the 8/9 matchups are often a coinflip, Creighton might not even make it to the second round. If posters want to bemoan the state of the Big East and how it "hurts" UCONN, or talk about seeding criteria they dont agree with, than where are the posts about how Creighton deserves to be higher than an 8 seed?

 

[Plebe]

I admit to mostly going off of what Kim Adams said during the broadcast of the BE Championship Game, that and Creighton's record. Perhaps I shouldnt have used the word "unfair". My point was that arguably the difference between a 7 seed and an 8 seed is more significant than a 2 seed and a 1 seed, I could see Creighton giving TCU a tight game for example, while Creighton probably has no chance against a 1 seed. And the 8/9 matchups are often a coinflip, Creighton might not even make it to the second round. If posters want to bemoan the state of the Big East and how it "hurts" UCONN, or talk about seeding criteria they dont agree with, than where are the posts about how Creighton deserves to be higher than an 8 seed?

The conference-owned broadcasts across the board are notorious for this kind of blatant rah-rah talk about seeding and bracketology. Adams also tried to pump up Seton Hall's “tournament resume” as a potential at-large team. To describe this as wishful thinking would be putting it mildly.

I'm not convinced Creighton would have earned a higher seed playing in a better conference. The data from this season as a whole indicate that an 8 or 9 seed is consistent with their quality of play. Whether they might pull an upset is a separate question. The 8-9 game is not a good place to land, but two years ago Stanford and Indiana as 1 seeds were upset in the 2nd round by Ole Miss (8 seed) and Miami (9 seed).

 

[baggerbob]

Very true! We (or anyone else) are vulnerable when we don’t/can’t put the ball in the basket! I do however, think that many/some on this board make far too much of the Tenn. loss in their rush to deny our possible #1 seeding! Yes, we lost a game on the road where we shot 40% & 25% and were out rebounded by double digits! However, look at what this team has done since! Does anyone doubt that we would likely beat Tennessee (as they were then) by 15+ now? I don’t believe any team in the country has been better since that Tennessee loss!
I truly don’t care if they put us as a #2 but I do take issue with those who have a cow at the very idea that UConn might possibly get a one seed! I don’t say it would be unfair to place us as a two but I also do not think a one seed would be unfair. The Committee looks at a lot of things in making their decisions and while I firmly believe there is bias in some of their decisions, in this case it really could go either way for UConn! I just pray our girls can put together a six game run of high level offense and defense!

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.

 

[uconnfan68]

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.

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

 

[BRS24]

Late last night update, most likely the lower seeds based on a few bubbles bursting.

 

[BRS24]

Today's update from CC;

The bubble might not be deep this year, but it doesn't mean there isn't intrigue. And Providence is where most of it lies. For the second straight year, Ivy Madness holds the key to the final spots in the NCAA tournament field. Princeton and Harvard -- currently the final two teams in the field -- meet in Friday's Ivy League semifinals, and no fan base outside of the Northeast will be watching this game with more interest than the Virginia Tech faithful. If there is a decisive victory by either the Tigers or Crimson, the loser is likely out, once again opening a spot for the Hokies, who have spent much of the past month floating between the right and wrong side of the bubble. Depending on how these games go, any two -- or possibly three -- Ivy League teams can make the NCAA tournament. (Regular-season champ Columbia is the favorite to emerge from the other side of the bracket.) Last year, the Ivy got two bids for the first time. This season, it looks destined to match that -- or do it one better.​

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.

Ivy League Announces Next Three Sites for Ivy Madness; Headed to Providence in 2025

Ivy Madness 2024

ivyleague.com

 

[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.