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?