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

[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.

 

[BRS24]

Last night's update

Harvard, the Ivy League's highest-rated team in NET all season, made sure its NCAA tournament bid was secure by winning Ivy Madness over Columbia 74-71 on Saturday. It will be the Crimson's first trip to the tournament since 2007, and they likely won't be the only Ivy team in the field. The Lions, the regular-season champs, stay in the field as an at-large and Princeton, which lost to the Crimson by three in Friday's semifinals, also remains in the field as the last team in. That said, the last team might be the selection committee's most difficult decision -- an argument could also be made for Virginia Tech. But four losses in the past six games, some to non-NCAA tournament teams, might keep Virginia Tech out, allowing the Ivy to set another benchmark -- one year after getting two bids to the NCAA tournament, upping it again to three.​

And call me crazy, however I still don't see how the Big Ten gets 12 teams in. Reminds me of the heydays of the ACC men getting more teams in than deserved. I'd rather see some of the regular season champs whose bubble was burst get in, over the middle of the pack "big conferences". Yes, yes, I know that some of the mid conferences level of play might not be the same, however giving a burst bubble top conference team a bid over a somewhat mediocre big conference would be fun. Even #10 Mississippi State (7-9, 21-11) in the SEC is a reach IMO.

1 - USC : 17-1 / 28-3
2 - UCLA : 16-2 / 30-2
3 - Ohio State : 13-5 / 25-6
4 - Maryland : 13-5 / 23-7
5 - Michigan State : 11-7 / 21-9
6 - Illinois : 11-7 / 21-9
7 - Michigan : 11-7 / 22-10
8 - Iowa : 10-8 / 22-10
9 - Nebraska : 10-8 / 21-11
10 - Oregon : 10-8 / 19-11
11 - Indiana : 10-8 / 19-12
12 - Washington : 9-9 / 19-13
13 - Minnesota : 8-10 / 20-11

 

[broooce]

Last night's update

Harvard, the Ivy League's highest-rated team in NET all season, made sure its NCAA tournament bid was secure by winning Ivy Madness over Columbia 74-71 on Saturday. It will be the Crimson's first trip to the tournament since 2007, and they likely won't be the only Ivy team in the field. The Lions, the regular-season champs, stay in the field as an at-large and Princeton, which lost to the Crimson by three in Friday's semifinals, also remains in the field as the last team in. That said, the last team might be the selection committee's most difficult decision -- an argument could also be made for Virginia Tech. But four losses in the past six games, some to non-NCAA tournament teams, might keep Virginia Tech out, allowing the Ivy to set another benchmark -- one year after getting two bids to the NCAA tournament, upping it again to three.​

View attachment 107789

And call me crazy, however I still don't see how the Big Ten gets 12 teams in. Reminds me of the heydays of the ACC men getting more teams in than deserved. I'd rather see some of the regular season champs whose bubble was burst get in, over the middle of the pack "big conferences". Yes, yes, I know that some of the mid conferences level of play might not be the same, however giving a burst bubble top conference team a bid over a somewhat mediocre big conference would be fun. Even #10 Mississippi State (7-9, 21-11) in the SEC is a reach IMO.

1 - USC : 17-1 / 28-3
2 - UCLA : 16-2 / 30-2
3 - Ohio State : 13-5 / 25-6
4 - Maryland : 13-5 / 23-7
5 - Michigan State : 11-7 / 21-9
6 - Illinois : 11-7 / 21-9
7 - Michigan : 11-7 / 22-10
8 - Iowa : 10-8 / 22-10
9 - Nebraska : 10-8 / 21-11
10 - Oregon : 10-8 / 19-11
11 - Indiana : 10-8 / 19-12
12 - Washington : 9-9 / 19-13
13 - Minnesota : 8-10 / 20-11

Fully agree on regular season conference champs whose bubble burst during their conference tournament, especially those who lost in the finals! Among Albany, Hawai'i, James Madison and perhaps one or two others that were conference champs should sneak in over middle-of-the-road teams from bigger conference (Richmond appears to be the only one in CC's bracketology that makes it in). Such teams, IMO, are what makes the tournament so exciting - the potential of a 13/14/15/16 seed knocking off a top seed (ok, 1/16 has only happened once in WBB with Sarah's mom's Harvard team). Said another way, I think conference champs who lost in their tournament final should get priority for the NCAA tournament, and relegate middle-of-the-road P4 teams that would be seeded 10 or worse should be relegated to the WBIT instead. Four of the BIG teams are seeded 10-11 in CC's bracketology: Nebraska, Oregon, Indiana (all 10's) & Washington (11) while B12 Iowa St. is currently projected by CC as an 11-seed. No team lower than a 9-seed has ever made the Final Four, and the lowest seed to ever win a WBB championship is a 3-seed (most recently LSU in 2023). Personally those five BIG or B12 teams may benefit more by going on a long run in the WBIT and whoever wins that championship there can achieve a more meaningful building block for their program than a round 1 or 2 loss in the NCAA's.

 

[diggerfoot]

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.

Hmmm. Well, some of the posters you target are making a case that there is subjectivity in the process. You are creating the strawman that this means they must think the process arbitrary.

Your retort, perhaps unintentionally, suggests the process is purely objective. Your use of rules and protocols does not necessarily imply this. Even your use of the word metrics might be overlooked. However, when you also use the word formula along with metrics in various posts, you are then implying objectivity, whether intentional or not.

Rationale accurately describes the process, objectivity inaccurately. If seedings were determined objectively, you would not have folks like Creme projecting brackets. There is no guess work to an objective formula with metrics. The seeding committee applies a rationale that Creme and others are pretty good at understanding and guessing, but understanding an objective formula means no guessing, no wrong predictions will occur.

Maybe some posters who mean subjective are conveying arbitrary, but you are conveying objective when you should mean rational. Maybe some of the “absurd” denialism that causes you such aggravation results from you confusing rational with objective in your terminology.

 

[packwrap]

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

Wow, I'd sign up for that opponent % for all 6 tourney games. What would kill us is if a team like Texas, that usually shoots 1 for 7 from three, comes out of nowhere and suddenly makes 12 of 20 against our packed in anti-big d.

Both USC and ND shot well against us this season.

 

[hussybulldog]

One thought on matching up in final 4, it was mentioned that ucla /southern cal will not be placed in semi against each other . But I remember they used to put conn and ND in semi quite a few times ..if ucla and southern cal are overall no 2 /3 , they should be against each other in semi, No?

 

[Vowelguy]

One thought on matching up in final 4, it was mentioned that ucla /southern cal will not be placed in semi against each other . But I remember they used to put conn and ND in semi quite a few times ..if ucla and southern cal are overall no 2 /3 , they should be against each other in semi, No?

Correct. Whoever said they wouldn't be matched up in the semi is not correct.

Now if UCLA is #1 and USC #3, which is probably where I'd have them, then they'd be on opposites side of the bracket. But there is no reason or NCAA rule against them being on the same side of the bracket.

 

[BRS24]

Last update from Charlie

Champ Week is a wrap, and now it's up to the committee to give us the final bracket. But first: One final look at what we think will happen in tonight's Selection Special (8 ET, ESPN). The bubble remains the biggest question: Who will be the last team in and first team out? It might be the most difficult decision for the committee. Bracketology still gives the nod to Princeton over Virginia Tech. The Tigers and Hokies have just one Quad 1 win apiece, with the Tigers having a slightly better nonconference strength of schedule and a better record against the NET top 100. The Hokies have wins over NCAA tournament teams Cal, Georgia Tech and Louisville, but they also lost four of their past six and had losses to four teams not in the discussion for the field of 68. If Princeton and Columbia get at-large bids to go with Harvard as the conference's automatic qualifier, the Ivy League would put three teams in the NCAA tournament for the first time.​

 

[Dugway]

Question, when was the last time Charlie Creme had all of this right?

 

[BRS24]

Question, when was the last time Charlie Creme had all of this right?

¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[BBallF]

A number two seed

View attachment 107670
Although I think we have an argument to be a a one seed, this would be a good bracket for us.

Proving once again he is usually wrong about the details.