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

[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.

 

[Plebe]

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

It's darn near impossible to get every seed and matchup exactly right. He predicts the overwhelming majority of teams within 1 seed line of where the committee puts them, and that's pretty good.

 

[Plebe]

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.

 

[Plebe]

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

Btw I think he predicted the entire field of 68 accurately. Usually he and every other bracketologist misses on 1 or 2 bubble teams ...

​

View attachment 107798

... and he actually got the "last four in" exactly right! Princeton-Iowa State and Washington-Columbia are the play-in games.

 

[YKCornelius]

View attachment 107805

Well done, Plebe, very well done! You should be very proud of yourself, indeed!