Charlie Creme's Way-Too-Early Top 25 | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Charlie Creme's Way-Too-Early Top 25

Status
Not open for further replies.
Plebe said:
Again, his role was and is to predict the committee's bracket. It's not his personal ranking or his personal prediction of who will win. Separately he actually predicted UConn to reach the Final Four. Bracketology is his projection of the committee's decisions, a projection that was mighty accurate I might add.

Why are people in this constant state of ginned up outrage over someone's accurate bracketology predictions? Is there really such a psychological need to feel constantly disrespected?
Expand ...
Your second paragraph articulates what I feel so many times when I read posts on this forum !! lol well done
 
oldude said:
If you look down ESPN’s projected top 25 for next season, there at #17 is ND, a team that right now doesn’t have enough players to field a basketball team. At present, the Irish have only 3 returning players, one of whom started, and 1 incoming freshman.

I guess Hidalgo should average around 65 ppg next season……
Expand ...
good on the 65 if you include shots turnovers flops
 
I believe he picked South Carolina to beat us.
Not very accurate
With us being Nat champs it is a fun discussion and no need to argue. My opinion is the committee and some of these advisors are biased on the big east and the teams that represent — some years they may be more accurate but many not so much. Sending UConn to Spokane made it more difficult to win this year and the road for Carolina very easy — that did bother me and I did not agree and believe Geno was not very pleased as well
Being in Tampa last week was amazing to see UConn Nation show up in FL and I believe was even larger than SC.
Great support.
Crème ranking us 3 for next year is a bit pre mature and we should have gotten the benefit of the doubt so early
 
yhun89 said:
Love how ESPN just had these articles ready to post the SECOND the natty is won.
Expand ...
I know. Visit wbb at CBSsports.com. They are more gracious and acknowledging of UConn's accomplishment. ESPN seems to be burying yesterday's event with next year's maybe's, gambling odds and even an article about South Carolina's (??!!) focus on next season.
 
Bone Dog said:
I’m looking forward to the return of the posters who claim that the NC winner must be the preseason #1 because they deserve it. Like the change in personnel has no relevance.
Expand ...
Ordinarily Dog, I would wag my tail...no, nod my head and say...this guy is on to something.
But, in this case...nah!

We just obliterated two teams (supposedly) ranked ahead of us by an average of over 25 points...
Doesn't that count for anything?

In those 2 games, Paige scored an average of 16.5 points
So we lose those points and still have an 8 point cushion.

I understand that this is an enormous simplification...and far from any reality...
and ordinarily, I don't do this type of theoretical analysis, bullcrap...

But the obliteration aspect strikes a chord with me...SC and Dawn came out with a chip on their shoulder from the beating they took earlier...But by the 3rd quarter...or in it...when it was clear, that they couldn't run their offense in the face of our disrupting D, they were beat... and body language was in full negative display...The rest was garbage time.

How they could be ranked ahead of us is a form of ignorance...even insanity.
 
I recall reading just a couple weeks ago ... quad 1 wins, .... quad 1 wins, ... quad ..., quad ..., quad ..., quad ..., quad ..., quad ..., quad ...,

As if that was the sole reason or rational the Committee uses for determining the backet.
 
Plebe said:
Do you actually know the number or was this just rhetorical?

Just off the top of my head, A'ja Wilson was 2017 FF MOP and her team was ranked #4 in the preseason AP poll of 2017-18. I'm sure it's happened other times as well.
Expand ...
Just off the top of my head, you named one instance. I’d be willing to bet the vast majority of champions begin the next season at #1 unless they are completely decimated by graduation/injury. As has been previously pointed out, we completely dominated the two teams he ranked above us with Paige having very average games in both instances!
 
Cuango said:
Just off the top of my head, you named one instance. I’d be willing to bet the vast majority of champions begin the next season at #1 unless they are completely decimated by graduation/injury. As has been previously pointed out, we completely dominated the two teams he ranked above us with Paige having very average games in both instances!
Expand ...
Maybe he also saw her score 40 and 31 in the Sweet 16 and Elite Eight games, one of which we didn't exactly completely dominate.

Maybe, just maybe, he thinks Paige's impact on winning extends far beyond her measurable stats. Would we really disagree with that?

But again, can we not just enjoy this fabulous victory without indulging the need to feel persecuted?
 
SLY63 said:
Agree with everything said here. Losing Paige, but returning such a strong core (no pun intended). Should keep us at #1. My question to Charlie would be, "Given the core of Strong, Fudd, Shade and Arnold, tell me a team with more offensive punch AND we are losing much less on D than on O with Paige leaving."
Expand ...
Totally agree Sly. The heart and soul of our defense is coming back. Every reason to think we will have easily the best D in WCBB. With Azzi and Sarah our offense ought to be at least among the best, so I really like our chances. But I love the idea of going in not ranked #1.
 
lol. Yeah Paige was terrible at defense. That's why when we went to the small lineup Paige was often guarding at the 4-spot and yet she managed to never get into foul trouble despite have to play someone bigger and stronger.

It's funny. Some fans will tell you all year how great all these players are, but then once they leave, they didn't matter. I look forward to hearing about starter and leader K Chen didnt do very much.
 
Vowelguy said:
lol. Yeah Paige was terrible at defense. That's why when we went to the small lineup Paige was often guarding at the 4-spot and yet she managed to never get into foul trouble despite have to play someone bigger and stronger.

It's funny. Some fans will tell you all year how great all these players are, but then once they leave, they didn't matter. I look forward to hearing about starter and leader K Chen didnt do very much.
Expand ...
Paige is a great defender, no doubt. But imo Sarah and KK were our best defenders, while Azzi and Ash, like Paige, are excellent on D. Imo, we had far and away the best defense in the country and I don’t see a big drop off next year on D.

But don’t get me wrong, Paige is a huge loss and Crème’s ranking is totally plausible. I just see it a bit differently.
 
JBK said:
Charlie should retire or rank corn toss or something else. For he and his partners giving UConn a 2 seed when they beat up SC on their home court was disrespectful. Stop with the strength of schedule when you have a head to head sample —occurring late in the season —which similar losses and when UConn was fully healthy ( Azzi )
Even Vegas knew it was a joke making UConn big favorites over every 1 seed.
How is that possible if they were correct -
and now he has us ranked 3 with 2 potential all Americans and great role players.
KK and KC is an equal trade off. Can Azzi replace Paige 20 ppg —- yes
Can ash replace Azzi with 12/13 ppg - yes
Jana keeps progressing as well as Sarah with a strong bench.
Look out.
Expand ...
It is clear that you don’t understand at all what Charlie Creme is doing. He is merely predicting what the committee will do, and he is doing a good job of that.
 
stamfordhusky said:
It is clear that you don’t understand at all what Charlie Creme is doing. He is merely predicting what the committee will do, and he is doing a good job of that.
Expand ...
I really do not care what Charlie does and do not believe my thoughts are unique. You have no idea if he giving his own thoughts as well in his selections. He did pick SC and the committee made their journey so much easier than UConn.
He and the committee have not evaluated the men and women big East performance accurately for years. Some say it is football and TV related.
If it is quad 1 wins only then they need to re evaluate and look at head to head. The one seeds are supposed to be the best team at the time of tournament and yet Vegas had us as big favorites in every game.
Obviously we should have been a 1 seed as we destroyed all competitors.
We were peaking far before the tournament
with a healthy Azzi.
We will never have as many Quad 1 wins so would we need to go 40- 0 to be a 1 seed ? All of 37 victories was by double digits !
I guess you agree we should be 3 next year?
Why not start as a 1 with most of the team back and 2 possible all Americans
I know it does not matter - but it makes us having to be perfect to be a 1 seed with this committee.
 
JBK said:
I really do not care what Charlie does and do not believe my thoughts are unique. You have no idea if he giving his own thoughts as well in his selections. He did pick SC and the committee made their journey so much easier than UConn.
He and the committee have not evaluated the men and women big East performance accurately for years. Some say it is football and TV related.
If it is quad 1 wins only then they need to re evaluate and look at head to head. The one seeds are supposed to be the best team at the time of tournament and yet Vegas had us as big favorites in every game.
Obviously we should have been a 1 seed as we destroyed all competitors.
We were peaking far before the tournament
with a healthy Azzi.
We will never have as many Quad 1 wins so would we need to go 40- 0 to be a 1 seed ? All of 37 victories was by double digits !
I guess you agree we should be 3 next year?
Why not start as a 1 with most of the team back and 2 possible all Americans
I know it does not matter - but it makes us having to be perfect to be a 1 seed with this committee.
Expand ...
Charlie is not on the selection committee and has no influence over it. He’s a writer creating articles to generate interest and conversation. Period.
 
JBK said:
I really do not care what Charlie does and do not believe my thoughts are unique. You have no idea if he giving his own thoughts as well in his selections. He did pick SC and the committee made their journey so much easier than UConn.
He and the committee have not evaluated the men and women big East performance accurately for years. Some say it is football and TV related.
If it is quad 1 wins only then they need to re evaluate and look at head to head. The one seeds are supposed to be the best team at the time of tournament and yet Vegas had us as big favorites in every game.
Obviously we should have been a 1 seed as we destroyed all competitors.
We were peaking far before the tournament
with a healthy Azzi.
We will never have as many Quad 1 wins so would we need to go 40- 0 to be a 1 seed ? All of 37 victories was by double digits !
I guess you agree we should be 3 next year?
Why not start as a 1 with most of the team back and 2 possible all Americans
I know it does not matter - but it makes us having to be perfect to be a 1 seed with this committee.
Expand ...
A lot of bad takes here. Seedings reflect performance over the whole season and are not intended as a predictor of tournament results. Should LSU have been the overall #1 seed in 2023? Obviously not.

Vegas lines are not an authority. They anticipate and reflect bettor behavior. Notice how USC despite the injury and roster depletion opened as the #2 Vegas favorite to win the title next season:
www.espn.com

S. Carolina early 2026 women's hoops favorites

South Carolina has opened at +450 to win next season's NCAA women's basketball tournament, the shortest odds of any team, according to ESPN BET lines. USC came in next at +500, followed by national champion UConn at +600.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
 
Last edited:
Plebe said:
A lot of bad takes here. Seedings reflect performance over the whole season and are not intended as a predictor of tournament results. Should LSU have been the overall #1 seed in 2023? Obviously not.

Vegas lines are not an authority. They anticipate and reflect bettor behavior. Notice how USC despite the injury and roster depletion opened as the #2 Vegas favorite to win the title next season:
www.espn.com

S. Carolina early 2026 women's hoops favorites

South Carolina has opened at +450 to win next season's NCAA women's basketball tournament, the shortest odds of any team, according to ESPN BET lines. USC came in next at +500, followed by national champion UConn at +600.
www.espn.com www.espn.com
Expand ...
I state my opinion and obviously you are bullish on crème and the committee and believe we should be ranked 3rd next year and a number 2 seed ( shipped to Ca ) after embarrassing SC with their worst beating ever !!!
You should be happy and stop trying to prove my opinion or others are wrong.
My belief.
UConn should be ranked number 1 next year and should have been a 1 seed this year
Geno and the team proved that point !!!!! Beating UCLA and SC by 26 …..
 
JBK said:
I state my opinion and obviously you are bullish on crème and the committee and believe we should be ranked 3rd next year and a number 2 seed ( shipped to Ca ) after embarrassing SC with their worst beating ever !!!
You should be happy and stop trying to prove my opinion or others are wrong.
My belief.
UConn should be ranked number 1 next year and should have been a 1 seed this year
Geno and the team proved that point !!!!! Beating UCLA and SC by 26 …..
Expand ...
I like when people use the word “obviously” to lend credence to an inaccurate statement. That's not my position at all.

But even if it were, as the #3 team we would be a 1 seed, not a 2 seed.

Believe me, I'm as happy a fan as there is right now, especially since I care mostly about winning and I choose not to complain about meaningless rankings.
 
Vowelguy said:
UCLA was #1 most of the year and the return everyone, plus add Wazzu transfer Leger-Walker and the #2 HS recruit, Betts' little sister.
Expand ...
So, what, we'll beat them by only 20 points?
 
JBK said:
I state my opinion and obviously you are bullish on crème and the committee and believe we should be ranked 3rd next year and a number 2 seed ( shipped to Ca ) after embarrassing SC with their worst beating ever !!!
You should be happy and stop trying to prove my opinion or others are wrong.
My belief.
UConn should be ranked number 1 next year and should have been a 1 seed this year
Geno and the team proved that point !!!!! Beating UCLA and SC by 26 …..
Expand ...
  • Charlie Creme is a SPORTSWRITER
  • He is NOT on the selection committee
  • He has NO input into seeding
  • 2024-2025 results will NOT be taken into account for seeding the 2026 tournament
  • Polls are NOT used in seeding
  • Las Vegas odds, rankings, and fan sentiment are NOT criteria for seeding
  • Seeding is based on the FULL YEAR’s performance , not one game
How many times do we have to keep repeating ourselves?
Head bang
 
HuskyNan said:
  • Charlie Creme is a SPORTSWRITER
  • He is NOT on the selection committee
  • He has NO input into seeding
  • 2024-2025 results will NOT be taken into account for seeding the 2026 tournament
  • Polls are NOT used in seeding
  • Las Vegas odds, rankings, and fan sentiment are NOT criteria for seeding
  • Seeding is based on the FULL YEAR’s performance , not one game
How many times do we have to keep repeating ourselves?
Head bang
Expand ...
I know you are important on this site and I respect all that you provide and hence will drop it
Just stating my opinion which many felt the same way in Tampa.
I have had a relationship with Uconn BB for 7 years and can care less about Crème.
 
I know it’s just clickbait, but how you can have ND ranked top 25 when they don’t even have enough players to take the court is questionable. How you rank USC so high when they likely won’t have Juju, lose their starting front court, and their two most promising returning backcourt players is also questionable. I know it’s too early and a lot will happen in the portal, but at the time of publishing he didn’t really seem to account for the latest crop of news.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
149
Guests online
1,373
Total visitors
1,522
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,962
Messages
4,376,793
Members
10,168
Latest member
CTFan142


.
..
Top Bottom