Charlie Dishes It to the Committee, and Sums Up

[DobbsRover2]

So Charlie Creme nailed all 64 again to prove he's an idiot (savant, one who can understand arcane systems with amazing brilliancy), but not all of his picks were at the right levels according to the committee who feel that undefeated teams are better off being given a #8 seed because they haven't played any SEC teams. Things we all learned:

1. As Charlie says, any claims by certain lunatic fringe types that geography was paramount was clearly a pileofpoop belief, which they should have learned last year. There have been claims by certain clueless types that the S-curve "is not used" by the Committee, when actually it was shown to be paramount as MD and UTenn get shipped out to west to have fun maybe with Oregon State, and UConn gets to entertain the Brooklynites. Charlie does complain that we would have done better if he had known that the Committee was going to break from its "geography rule" so vigorously, but sorry Charlie, UConn in Lincoln showed you otherwise, and it's really churlish to b-itch and moan when you score 100 on the test. As the wise people say, "Consistency (by the Committee) is the hobgoblin of little minds."

2. USF gets a sweet deal overall. Sure they're in UConn's region, but that's down the road. The Bulls won the "Be with the poor homeless Cards and get to host them" sweepstakes. Love it.

3, Tulane gets in. Have to admit, I'm kind of shocked that the committee gave the AAC a third team in, but the conference is on the rise with just two less reps than the PAC and B12, and for all those posters who still talk about the "high school teams" in the AAC, the American women are showing they are not going to stay away.

4. Winning isn't everything, it's nothing. Creme's worst delusion was to think that the Committee would reward Princeton with a seed that was remotely near what the rankings and ratings and eye tests said they should get. Getting back to the small minds of hobgoblins, the Committee at least set up a situation where an Ivy League school may get a shot to knock off a #1 seed again, though this time it would have to come in the 2nd round. The funniest thing is that Charlie just discovered that the Committee does not run on RPI (despite what some have claimed on the Boneyard), as Princeton's #12 RPI earned them a #8 seed. But I'm still amazed that Charlie can nail all 64 teams even with with delusions (unless he has insider info).

5. Even Kara can be clueless sometimes, especially when she's trying to give a big sister boost to her old team. Sorry Kara, I grant you that Cierra Burdick is trying her best to keep the Vols on track,but to say that both she and Ariel Massengale are the leaders who are giving UTenn a chance for an FF ticket is way over the top. AM had 0 points in the last game and has shot 1-13 for the last two. If that's leadership, I hate to see what's happening at the back of the group.

6. As a slight aside, Kara and Becca had a wonderful breakdown of the ND offense showing five capable players running a potent Irish offense, while doing the same for UConn showing Stewie being surrounded by defenders from the beginning of a play. For all those who have been pushing some fantasy about Jewell Loyd being surrounded by a wasteland of teammates and always attracting the superwomen of defensive might while Stewie just gets to stroll in for easy shots because she is just one of many, I hope this provided a clue to reality.

7. USCar's Aleighsha Welch is very impressive on camera. Solid person and teammate, and she speaks well.

 

[VAUConnFan]

So Charlie Creme nailed all 64 again to prove he's an idiot (savant, one who can understand arcane systems with amazing brilliancy), but not all of his picks were at the right levels according to the committee who feel that undefeated teams are better off being given a #8 seed because they haven't played any SEC teams. Things we all learned:


7. USCar's Aleighsha Welch is very impressive on camera. Solid person and teammate, and she speaks well.

There are words, but they will not be expressed.

 

[Icebear]

I'm not sure anyone ever questioned Charlie's ability to pick the right 64. Rather it is his Bracketology and placement.

 

[Icebear]

There are words, but they will not be expressed.

Many folks don't speak well publicly.

 

[Striper69]

I'm not sure anyone ever questioned Charlie's ability to pick the right 64. Rather it is his Bracketology and placement.

Oh well, Princeton will just have to make do with what they have. At least I get a chance to see them play as well as GB...

 

[Striper69]

Got my tickets for the first two rounds at Maryland, BABY!!!

 

[DobbsRover2]

I'm not sure anyone ever questioned Charlie's ability to pick the right 64. Rather it is his Bracketology and placement.

Ah, IB, you are getting forgetful, as many posters have derided Charlie for missing on the IDs of the 64 teams along with the placements, displacing their frustration with the committee choices on to him. But to be fair, the last two years have been extraordinary even for Charlie as far as nailing the 64 picks, as in many past years there were some bubble teams he whiffed on. He obviously has refined the art of reading the clues about committee picks to a science at this point. And as to placement, I bet if you polled each of the committee members before they vote about what the outcome of the placement decisions will be for at least the 5-14 seeds, they probably wouldn't do much better a job than Creme at predicting the group-think.

As an example of Creme's accuracy was his assurance that Arkansas was in and would get a good seed even with a 6-10 conference record, while Beknighted thought the lousy record eliminated them from consideration, a sensible but in this case incorrect judgment. The standards are going down year-by-year, and I would not be surprised now if a 5-11 SEC conference record team gets selected. As the limbo question asks, "How low can you go?"

One good thing came from the Princeton WTF. The committee made it very clear that the OOC SOS is a paramount factor for many teams, at least for this year, and that may spur some of the SEC and B12 teams who have been scheduling #200+ OOC SOS to rethink things. I'm sure TCU and WVU are wishing their OOC SOS was not so bad. It is the only way I can explain how Princeton got a worse seed than FGCU, because in every conceivable thing except RPI OOC SOS, the Tigers are ahead. I will also admit that this theory doesn't hold up for Arkansas State, which according to the RPI OOC SOS played the #16 toughest schedule there, so it could just be that the committee wanted to stick it to Princeton and as usual was floundering around for some excuse to do so.

 

[DobbsRover2]

There are words, but they will not be expressed.

Last night they were, even if she had smart and friendly interviewers to help her along. Of the players and coaches interviewed, I thought she was the best, even if it's maybe only a one-night thing. Others interviewed seemed mainly to be gushing sports platitudes, and there was a huge lot of TMI with Holly and her wrist and lame humor about coaches who can or cannot dance.

 

[asuwish]

We saw Uconn play Green Bay and they play a great brand of bball. I think Princeton loses in the opening round - sorry.

 

[Striper69]

We saw Uconn play Green Bay and they play a great brand of bball. I think Princeton loses in the opening round - sorry.

It'll be a good game (for awhile) but Princeton will prevail. - sorry.

 

[Orangutan]

I'm not sure anyone ever questioned Charlie's ability to pick the right 64. Rather it is his Bracketology and placement.

He does a really good job identifying the central question the committee faces and a really bad job of predicting what decision they'll make.

 

[Striper69]

He does a really good job identifying the central question the committee faces and a really bad job of predicting what decision they'll make.

So he does a bad job of predicting what their bad job will be like?

 

[Orangutan]

So he does a bad job of predicting what their bad job will be like?

You could say that.

 

[Deadrody]

One good thing came from the Princeton WTF. The committee made it very clear that the OOC SOS is a paramount factor for many teams, at least for this year, and that may spur some of the SEC and B12 teams who have been scheduling #200+ OOC SOS to rethink things. I'm sure TCU and WVU are wishing their OOC SOS was not so bad. It is the only way I can explain how Princeton got a worse seed than FGCU, because in every conceivable thing except RPI OOC SOS, the Tigers are ahead. I will also admit that this theory doesn't hold up for Arkansas State, which according to the RPI OOC SOS played the #16 toughest schedule there, so it could just be that the committee wanted to stick it to Princeton and as usual was floundering around for some excuse to do so.

These people obviously need to buy a damn clue. A relatively meaningless statistical measure - based on simple ratios - should not be some kind of catch all.

There is nothing Princeton can do to improve on winning every game they played. It's really that simple. No, none of the teams they beat were world beaters. But at some point, you have to reward a team for going 30-0. An 8 seed is not a reward for that in any way, shape, or form.

So far I've looked at two statistical measures that I actually have faith in - The Massey and Sagarin Ratings. BOTH put Princeton as a #2 seed.

That's just disgraceful.

 

[VAUConnFan]

Many folks don't speak well publicly.

That was not the point.

 

[DobbsRover2]

These people obviously need to buy a damn clue. A relatively meaningless statistical measure - based on simple ratios - should not be some kind of catch all.

There is nothing Princeton can do to improve on winning every game they played. It's really that simple. No, none of the teams they beat were world beaters. But at some point, you have to reward a team for going 30-0. An 8 seed is not a reward for that in any way, shape, or form.

So far I've looked at two statistical measures that I actually have faith in - The Massey and Sagarin Ratings. BOTH put Princeton as a #2 seed.

That's just disgraceful.

I cannot remember anything even close to the discrepancy between the seed given and the rankings and top ratings index evaluations for a team in recent times. Even on the SOS question it's just brain-dead RPI that has Princeton rated so poorly, as Massey has their SOS as better than mid majors such as FGCU and Chattanooga who got higher seeds. Puzzling in a lot of ways.

And again, to those who think it's easy to pick the correct 64 teams for the tourney and that Creme is doing a bad job, it would be interesting to see some competing examples next year. Obviously you can't beat 100% of the picks, and if you had borrowed Creme's list and stuck Princeton in as a #8 instead of a #5, you would have been getting a lot of flak from a big group of fans.

 

[JoePgh]

I think the lesson here is that the committee wants to motivate teams to play a challenging schedule, particularly out-of-conference where they have more control. If Princeton had gone 27-3 or even 25-5 but had played a number of Top 100 teams, they probably would have gotten a better seed.

 

[Icebear]

Ah, IB, you are getting forgetful, as many posters have derided Charlie for missing on the IDs of the 64 teams along with the placements, displacing their frustration with the committee choices on to him. .

Probably because all I ever complain about is the placements.

 

[DobbsRover2]

I think the lesson here is that the committee wants to motivate teams to play a challenging schedule, particularly out-of-conference where they have more control. If Princeton had gone 27-3 or even 25-5 but had played a number of Top 100 teams, they probably would have gotten a better seed.

Maybe, but if RPI SOS is what the committee is going by (it's the only measure where Princeton falls a bit short), then they would have also seen the Princeton was 9-0 against top 100 teams, while the two mid majors seeded just ahead of them with records like you describe were 8-1 for FGCU and only 4-3 for Chattanooga against T100. However, I do realize that much of the Mocs' seeding revolves around the upset of UTenn.

 

[Striper69]

I think the lesson here is that the committee wants to motivate teams to play a challenging schedule, particularly out-of-conference where they have more control. If Princeton had gone 27-3 or even 25-5 but had played a number of Top 100 teams, they probably would have gotten a better seed.

The coach said that higher rated teams don't want to play them. Kind of a Catch-22.

Geno should schedule UCONN to play them next year.

 

[Striper69]

These people obviously need to buy a damn clue. A relatively meaningless statistical measure - based on simple ratios - should not be some kind of catch all.

There is nothing Princeton can do to improve on winning every game they played. It's really that simple. No, none of the teams they beat were world beaters. But at some point, you have to reward a team for going 30-0. An 8 seed is not a reward for that in any way, shape, or form.

So far I've looked at two statistical measures that I actually have faith in - The Massey and Sagarin Ratings. BOTH put Princeton as a #2 seed.

That's just disgraceful.

I think it will all be a moot point in the end. Princeton has a very good chance of coming out of College Park with two wins.

This worked out great for me. I get to see two of the Native American players (for GB and NMS) play in the tournament and also get to see Princeton. I also like Maryland and wish they would advance but I favor Princeton.

 

[Wally East]

That was not the point.

I got what you're saying.

 

[Geno-ista]

Last night they were, even if she had smart and friendly interviewers to help her along. Of the players and coaches interviewed, I thought she was the best, even if it's maybe only a one-night thing. Others interviewed seemed mainly to be gushing sports platitudes, and there was a huge lot of TMI with Holly and her wrist and lame humor about coaches who can or cannot dance.

She is and was very impressive in her interview last night. She may be the only player on So Car that could start on our team. She seams to be a great young lady and has the heart of a husky!!!! She's awesome!

 

[VolFan]

5. Even Kara can be clueless sometimes, especially when she's trying to give a big sister boost to her old team. Sorry Kara, I grant you that Cierra Burdick is trying her best to keep the Vols on track,but to say that both she and Ariel Massengale are the leaders who are giving UTenn a chance for an FF ticket is way over the top. AM had 0 points in the last game and has shot 1-13 for the last two. If that's leadership, I hate to see what's happening at the back of the group.

First off, Leadership is so much more than things in the box score. But speaking of that, yes, Massengale had a putrid SEC tournament. However, even with those averages factored in, she's scoring 13 points a game and her assists are up since Harrison went out, and she tied a school record, hitting 8 3's in the home finale against Vanderbilt. Ariel Massengale has been playing starter's minutes in our backcourt for four years, and her experience and leadership is extremely valuable.

 

[mhshuskies]

I got what you're saying.

yes and thank you VAUConnFan for making your point

 

[tennparker3]

I am going to give Ariel a homer shout out here since I saw her leadership questioned. She ripped her big toe nail out in the Kentucky game and still fought through two aggressive battles. I ripped my toe nail out in a high school basketball game and vomited from the pain and almost passed out from blood loss. I was disappointed in her offensive showing in the SEC tourney but after learning about that I thought that was mighty tough of her to suck it up and play a lot of basketball.

Charlie Creme gets paid to speculate, something we all seem to be able to do just as well if not better. He is a joke to me.

 

[DobbsRover2]

First off, Leadership is so much more than things in the box score. But speaking of that, yes, Massengale had a putrid SEC tournament. However, even with those averages factored in, she's scoring 13 points a game and her assists are up since Harrison went out, and she tied a school record, hitting 8 3's in the home finale against Vanderbilt. Ariel Massengale has been playing starter's minutes in our backcourt for four years, and her experience and leadership is extremely valuable.

Didn't know about the big toe, and that does give her maybe a pass for 4-25 shooting in the SECT. She did at least average 3 assists during the SECT, which may be something to build leadership around. But it does still beg the question of can she provide the leadership in the Tourney that Kara talked about during the selection show? If she is still at a physically impaired enough state that she shoots 16% along with dishing out a few assists in the NCAAT, even trying to do a Willis Reed impersonation is not going to give the Vols the type of leadership boost they need to go deep. Hopefully the two weeks rest will have her back at normal.

But when the star player on a top team goes down, almost by default the rest of the starters are going to get more shots and take up some of the missing points. A three point boost for Massengale is such a situation is about what you'd expect, and the Vols have been scoring more than 3 points less a game since Izzy went down. But all the best to Ariel, and if she can recover and will her team back to an FF out in Spokane, good for her.

 

[CamrnCrz1974]

I do not understand the hate for Creme. First, it is a thankless job. If you get the picks right, there is no reward, as it is what is expected of you. And if you get the picks wrong, you are called an "idiot."

Plus, it really is a lot of work. Not only do you have to be familiar with every team's body of work, you also have to understand the NCAA's rules, which change (even if the NCAA publicly denies this) on an annual basis.

Even Joe Lunardi, the men's bracket guru who is renown for his accuracy, did not have the geographic placement right or the seeds correct. As an example, he had Indiana and UCLA on his list of "First Four Out" teams. But both made it - and Indiana did so while being seeded 10th.

No disrespect intended to individual posters, but when people comment that "they could do a better job" or that he is a "joke" or an "idiot," I always wonder I did not see their own versions of Bracketology before the Selection Show.

 

[EricSD]

I do not understand the hate for Creme. First, it is a thankless job. If you get the picks right, there is no reward, as it is what is expected of you. And if you get the picks wrong, you are called an "idiot."

Plus, it really is a lot of work. Not only do you have to be familiar with every team's body of work, you also have to understand the NCAA's rules, which change (even if the NCAA publicly denies this) on an annual basis.

Even Joe Lunardi, the men's bracket guru who is renown for his accuracy, did not have the geographic placement right or the seeds correct. As an example, he had Indiana and UCLA on his list of "First Four Out" teams. But both made it - and Indiana did so while being seeded 10th.

No disrespect intended to individual posters, but when people comment that "they could do a better job" or that he is a "joke" or an "idiot," I always wonder I did not see their own versions of Bracketology before the Selection Show.

I think it's because it's low hanging fruit. Anyone can get on a message board and say "So and so is a complete idiot". No proof or facts are needed. I actually give Creme credit for putting Tennessee in ND's bracket - any time they bow out early in the NCAA's is like a holiday for me. And I'm sure he pissed off a lot of Tennessee fans by not following the S curve...

 

[DobbsRover2]

Agree. I use to have a lot more issues with Charlie years ago, but I just am amazed how basically accurate he is in fathoming what the committee will think. Clearly he would make selections differently if it was his job, but it isn't. He just gets to predict. Many fans seem to think that picking the 64 teams in the WCBB tourney for two years in a row is a ho-hom feat, but it is really extremely hard, especially if you don't have someone like him to base your picks on. If you've heard him in interviews, you know that he follows the sport in almost anal depth.

I did call him an idiot earlier in the year when he felt compelled to put Cornell in as the Ivy selection because it had played one more game than Princeton (with the Tigers as an at-large), but even that is just his anal fixation with following his own selecting rules even if they make no sense in early January for selections that will occur two months later. But overall, there is just a lot of jealousy and displaced frustration that gets dumped on him.