Creme Bracketology 3/4

[Gamecockfan77]

Not surprised at all that Creme is finding any crack to justify keeping UT in the conversation for being included in the NCAA 64 team tournament. Last year, he had UT as a #3 seed, which was a joke. UT should not have even been a host site last year.

Tennessee was a #3 seed in last year's tourney. It's a joke that he got it right?

Sounds like your issue is with the NCAA's process. Not Charlie Creme.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Another Bracket.

Women’s basketball bracketology: The second committee reveal

Yes! Portland! Finally a realistic bracket.

 

[LoTrader]

Tennessee was a #3 seed in last year's tourney. It's a joke that he got it right?

Sounds like your issue is with the NCAA's process. Not Charlie Creme.

Both

 

[Golden Husky]

More questions...

UConn wins the AAC Tournament and Louisville beats ND in the ACC Tournament. Does UConn move up to the overall #3 seed?

UConn wins the AAC Tournament and ND beats Louisville in the ACC Tournament. Does UConn move up to the overall #3 seed?

UConn wins the AAC Tournament and both Louisville and ND lose in the ACC Tournament. Does UConn move up to the overall #2 seed?

 

[DallasBUFan]

More questions...

UConn wins the AAC Tournament and Louisville beats ND in the ACC Tournament. Does UConn move up to the overall #3 seed?

UConn wins the AAC Tournament and ND beats Louisville in the ACC Tournament. Does UConn move up to the overall #3 seed?

UConn wins the AAC Tournament and both Louisville and ND lose in the ACC Tournament. Does UConn move up to the overall #2 seed?

I don't see them moving up to #2. #3 possibly. Also, if Oregon wins PAC 12 tourney that will make it all even more jumbled.

 

[Vowelguy]

More questions...

UConn wins the AAC Tournament and Louisville beats ND in the ACC Tournament. Does UConn move up to the overall #3 seed?

UConn wins the AAC Tournament and ND beats Louisville in the ACC Tournament. Does UConn move up to the overall #3 seed?

UConn wins the AAC Tournament and both Louisville and ND lose in the ACC Tournament. Does UConn move up to the overall #2 seed?

1 game doesnt matter that much, so I think UConn is #4 in cases A & B, and could move up to #3 in the last case.

And let's not forget KLS's injury. If she there's any doubt about her health and Ore wins the PAC, I could see the Ducks pushing UConn out.

 

[Vowelguy]

Because there are automatic bids given to weak conferences. Those teams would never make the tournament on their own, and they are generally not very good.. Those ~20 teams get the #12-#16 seeds in each region. The last at-large team to make the field is always an 11 or 12 seed.

Furthermore,

Robert Morris is a projected automatic bid. They are #198 in Massey. They lost to Iowa by 30, James Madison by 20, and AAC's SMU.
They are 0-6 against the Massey top 200.
Their best win was over Sacred Heart (Massey 229), a team they also lost to.

Tenn, by contrast, is #48 Massey & 11-10 against the Massey 200. The other bubble teams are similar. Ie, much much better than Robert Morris.

 

[Striper69]

Hope he's wrong about South Dakota playing in Iowa City. I want them in another bracket so Iowa doesn't have to play them..

I will be in Iowa City for these games!

 

[willtalk]

They didn't. The other at-large teams he moved into his latest bracket are Buffalo, Kansas State and TCU, none of which are in the SEC. And LSU is one of the teams he moved out from his previous bracket.

Exactly which Pac-12 teams do you think have earned a bid? Utah and Arizona were in some of his previous brackets, but both have fallen way out of RPI range (75 and 81, respectively). USC has a decent RPI but their resume is *very* light on quality wins (Cal and UCLA are their only top 50 wins).

You want to be mad at someone for "too many" SEC teams or "not enough" Pac-12 teams getting in?

• Be mad at Oregon State and USC, both of whom dropped nonconference games to Texas A&M.
• Be mad at Florida State, UNC and Texas, who dropped nonconference games to LSU, Auburn and Tennessee, respectively.
• Be mad at Utah and Arizona, both of whom scheduled so poorly in the nonconference (#307 and #322 NC SOS) that they picked up zero quality OOC wins and their RPIs are now too low for consideration.

Or are you also going to blame Creme for making those teams lose games and schedule poorly?

To begin with my post was not not directed specifically at any individual teams either making or not making the bracket except for Tenn. And even they were only an example for my claim that Creme does not use a constant criteria or standard methodology, rather he cherry picks to justify his own preconceived biases and conclusions.

I am not mad about any Pac 12 team being excluded. While some of those excluded might be more worthy than others that are included, their records do not justify getting mad at any gross injustice. It appears by your response that it might be you who is actually mad. Why because I am critical of Cremes flawed lazy methodology that relies entirely too much on RPI. ? Why defend Cremes methodology -- unless perhaps it reflects yours as well. I also accuse him of cherry picking and you respond with examples of specific individual games--- cherry picking. Are you implying that if Oregon St and Arizona had beaten TA&M everything would be different? And what do UNC and FS losing to two SEC teams mean. Teams lose all the time to lesser teams. And Texas was over rated when Tenn beat them. The arguments while not even applicable to my post, could never the less be argued and rebutted with other examples until the cows come home. But they are not relevant to my post.

My post was a follow response to something I posted in respect to Cremes very early Bracket the first week of Jan. It was then that I commented on what I perceived as Creme having already locked in how many spots were to be allocated to the Pac 12. At that time Tenn was not a factor. It was not even Pro Pac 12. I just used the Pac 12 as an because they were a highly rated conference and were the perfect example.

Right before league play began, both the ACC and the Pac 12 were considered to be the strongest conferences in WCBB and that was upheld by the various rating services. In fact I believe the Pac 12 was rated the highest. Oregon, Stanford, Oregon St, Cal, and Arizona St were considered locks, with Utah, UCLA, USC and Arizona as possibles. Well after Arizona beat Arizona St it became the 6th and final team in the Bracket. Then the pattern began to manifest. When Utah beat both Stanford and Cal, they replaced the team previously there. I mentioned that it appeared that he had decided to limit the strongest conference to 6 teams. With basically UCLA, USC and Utah fighting for the final spot. That proved to be true.

Now in respect to the strength of the SEC and Tenn. Creme held Tenn to a different standard than he would have any other team and this reflected his evaluation of the SEC. Any other team that tanked as quickly as Tenn would have long been dropped from the Bracket. But instead of down grading Tenn, he instead up graded the team that beat them. Thus he decided that it wasn't that Tenn was over rated, but that the SEC was underrated.

Again, I am not referring to any specific teams rating, but a pattern that was modified to justify not diminishing Tenn to the point of eliminating them from the bracket. What I am referring to is using a double standards and rationalizations to justify predetermined objectives. It didn't start out as a system to protect Tenn, rather it evolved into one that justified it now. I mean what will it take to eliminate them?

I don't feel he is pro SEC. Rather he has become pro SEC because it serves the purpose of justifying Tenn.

Vowelguy-------In respect to Creme eliminating Tenn for one week-- He sort of had too because of their long losing streak, but he figured they had some easy victories coming up. He needed them to win a few in row to justify putting them back in. again you have to recognize patterns to recognize agenda. I said as much at the time that he would put them back in once they had a couple of victories ( even though against bottom dwellers ) under their belt again.

I would not be as harsh against an average poster. The thing is that he works for ESPN and should be held to a higher standard than just looking at polls and the RPI. Very lazy. The RPI would be valid only as statistical starting point. It is too flawed to be a real measure of a teams actual strength of schedule.

 

[Gamecockfan77]

Both

You are blaming the messenger.

All Creme is trying to do is project what Committee will do.

I don't understand why people care so much about his projections beyond it sometimes tells them things they don't want to hear.

 

[Vowelguy]

You are blaming the messenger.

All Creme is trying to do is project what Committee will do.

+100000000000000000000000000000000

 

[willtalk]

You are blaming the messenger.

All Creme is trying to do is project what Committee will do.

I don't understand why people care so much about his projections beyond it sometimes tells them things they don't want to hear.

Frankly I don't put very much credence in what Creme says. What the problem is that some people do. That is the crux of the discussion. How much credence does Creme even deserve, not about which teams and where he puts them. They are only relevant in respect to concluding if he is using reason or is just rationalizing.

In my case it is also about an "Emperors New Clothes" syndrome. That is were no one even questions his conclusions just because he writes for ESPN. In respect to Creme I was looking for a discernible rational for his picks and didn't find one. For someone who is being paid to do this every year he should have some sort of formula or standard that he sticks too. I have seen far better efforts by random posters on WCBB sites, who seem to have put in far more effort. They should be doing these Brackets for ESPN.

As to Creme only trying to predict what the committed will do -- total BS. He often has criticized the committee's picks and decisions when they didn't match up with his own perspectives. He even uses the term Critique in respect to his latest take on their prelim bracket. He does critique and if you do that you are not predicting what they will do. If he was predicting he would only critique his predictions.

It is less that he is projecting what they will do rather more what they should do.

 

[maccca3232]

The fact that we have a thread every time he releases his latest version means it is, at least in part doing what it is supposed to do, which is create interest / discussion around WBB. Her Hoops Stats Medium released their Bracketology on 8 Feb and I don't remember seeing a thread on that.

One example is LSU and Tenn (currently 8th and 9th in SEC both with 7-9 conference records) who Creme has projected as Last In and First Out. That adds interest to a potential match up in the SEC Conference Tournament, which would otherwise be meaningless, except for those team's fans.

Now both may make it or neither my make it into the NCAA Tourney but Creme's projections, do add value right now.

Edited: Updated the link for Her Hoops Stats Medium to Week 14 Bracketology released on Feb 8.

 

[Plebe]

To begin with my post was not not directed specifically at any individual teams either making or not making the bracket except for Tenn. And even they were only an example for my claim that Creme does not use a constant criteria or standard methodology, rather he cherry picks to justify his own preconceived biases and conclusions.

I am not mad about any Pac 12 team being excluded. While some of those excluded might be more worthy than others that are included, their records do not justify getting mad at any gross injustice. It appears by your response that it might be you who is actually mad. Why because I am critical of Cremes flawed lazy methodology that relies entirely too much on RPI. ? Why defend Cremes methodology -- unless perhaps it reflects yours as well. I also accuse him of cherry picking and you respond with examples of specific individual games--- cherry picking. Are you implying that if Oregon St and Arizona had beaten TA&M everything would be different? And what do UNC and FS losing to two SEC teams mean. Teams lose all the time to lesser teams. And Texas was over rated when Tenn beat them. The arguments while not even applicable to my post, could never the less be argued and rebutted with other examples until the cows come home. But they are not relevant to my post.

My post was a follow response to something I posted in respect to Cremes very early Bracket the first week of Jan. It was then that I commented on what I perceived as Creme having already locked in how many spots were to be allocated to the Pac 12. At that time Tenn was not a factor. It was not even Pro Pac 12. I just used the Pac 12 as an because they were a highly rated conference and were the perfect example.

Right before league play began, both the ACC and the Pac 12 were considered to be the strongest conferences in WCBB and that was upheld by the various rating services. In fact I believe the Pac 12 was rated the highest. Oregon, Stanford, Oregon St, Cal, and Arizona St were considered locks, with Utah, UCLA, USC and Arizona as possibles. Well after Arizona beat Arizona St it became the 6th and final team in the Bracket. Then the pattern began to manifest. When Utah beat both Stanford and Cal, they replaced the team previously there. I mentioned that it appeared that he had decided to limit the strongest conference to 6 teams. With basically UCLA, USC and Utah fighting for the final spot. That proved to be true.

Now in respect to the strength of the SEC and Tenn. Creme held Tenn to a different standard than he would have any other team and this reflected his evaluation of the SEC. Any other team that tanked as quickly as Tenn would have long been dropped from the Bracket. But instead of down grading Tenn, he instead up graded the team that beat them. Thus he decided that it wasn't that Tenn was over rated, but that the SEC was underrated.

Again, I am not referring to any specific teams rating, but a pattern that was modified to justify not diminishing Tenn to the point of eliminating them from the bracket. What I am referring to is using a double standards and rationalizations to justify predetermined objectives. It didn't start out as a system to protect Tenn, rather it evolved into one that justified it now. I mean what will it take to eliminate them?

I don't feel he is pro SEC. Rather he has become pro SEC because it serves the purpose of justifying Tenn.

Vowelguy-------In respect to Creme eliminating Tenn for one week-- He sort of had too because of their long losing streak, but he figured they had some easy victories coming up. He needed them to win a few in row to justify putting them back in. again you have to recognize patterns to recognize agenda. I said as much at the time that he would put them back in once they had a couple of victories ( even though against bottom dwellers ) under their belt again.

I would not be as harsh against an average poster. The thing is that he works for ESPN and should be held to a higher standard than just looking at polls and the RPI. Very lazy. The RPI would be valid only as statistical starting point. It is too flawed to be a real measure of a teams actual strength of schedule.

Your post is deliciously conspiratorial. Without getting into the details of your seemingly forensic analysis of Creme's evil machinations, I just have to ask:

Why do you think Creme is so hell bent on a campaign to "justify" Tennessee, as you describe it? Do you think he's being paid off by them? And which teams currently not in his bracket have, in your estimation, a clearly better résumé than Tennessee?

 

[willtalk]

I think Creme like many other people who have done evaluations and ratings of teams for the last few years are influenced by the Tenn that once existed. They kept looking for rational to rate them high in the beginning of the season and again when the brackets came out. I am not the only one who believes this. I have nothing against Tenn. I just have something against people who do not judge upon merit but rather reputation. If you are in a position of responsibility it should be your objective to be objective.

I do believe that Maccca3232 has a good point. His perspective is probably better than mine. It at least brings reason to the unreasonable. It is done to stir up interest, discussion and better yet controversial debate as is happening on this thread. In that Creme has been successful. A lot of sports writers are doing that now.

As you asked me I began to think about why I thought Tenn shouldn't be in the tourney. You asked me which team has a better record. Now there may be teams that have better records and as I stated before I haven't thought about which teams deserve via their records are more worthy. Well thinking about it I come to the conclusion that teams do not need to have a better record. A similar record should put them in over Tenn. Why should an underachieving team that often seems to just go through the motions deserve a tie breaker just because of the schools history. In boxing if all things are equal the give the benefit to the boxer who is aggressive and tries harder. The tourney should reward good play and effort not something that this Tenn team has devolved into.

In Tenn case they have been on the bubble for a long time and really haven't beaten a top team. For most teams that is a major criteria to move up. As I said before they were removed because of a long losing streak against some mediocre teams they should have beaten easily. I mean the also lost to Vandy after the were given a gift of being put back in because of two lower level wins. Granted I can see why some people believe they are better than their record because of the level of players they have on their team. And that often does play a part, but it shouldn't in this case because of the level of tanking that has happened. Their level of underachievement has to be unprecedented. To put it bluntly-- They do not deserve to go. Let some over achieving team that has played hard get the spot.

As too what teams have better resumes than Tenn. I refer you to a thread on Rebkell. There many posters have answered that very question much better than I ever could.

 

[Roux4]

As I predicted- Tenn. win over national power Miss secured them a trip to the dance in Cremes brackets. He probably wants to do anything he can to assure Holley keeps her job. If on incompetent gets canned it might mean he could be next.

If you are saying Tennessee beat Mississippi State, you are wrong. They did not.

 

[southie]

When all is said and done, the committee will find a way to place UConn in Albany, Oregon in Portland, Notre Dame in Chicago, and South Carolina in Greensboro.

 

[Plebe]

When all is said and done, the committee will find a way to place UConn in Albany, Oregon in Portland, Notre Dame in Chicago, and South Carolina in Greensboro.

Not if Louisville wins the ACC tournament.

 

[southie]

Not of Louisville wins the ACC tournament.

Isn't Greensboro closer to Louisville than Chicago? If not, it looks close.

Where the committee decides to send Baylor will dictate a lot of other teams' fate.

 

[Vowelguy]

Isn't Greensboro closer to Louisville than Chicago? .

No. 300 vs 500 miles

 

[Plebe]

Isn't Greensboro closer to Louisville than Chicago? If not, it looks close.

Where the committee decides to send Baylor will dictate a lot of other teams' fate.

The critical difference is that Chicago is classified as "driving distance" from Louisville (<350 miles) while Greensboro isn't.

 

[MilfordHusky]

The critical difference is that Chicago is classified as "driving distance" from Louisville (<350 miles) while Greensboro isn't.

As Creme noted, flying v. driving is a big factor in the brackets.

 

[willtalk]

If you are saying Tennessee beat Mississippi State, you are wrong. They did not.

No I meant as I wrote it- They beat the National Power Miss. . Forgot the sarcasm emoji. It was a follow up of what I had said would happen if Tenn beat a couple of even bottom dwelling teams. They were restored back to the bracket.

 

[southie]

If Notre Dame or Louisville does win the tourney, the picture might be clearer as to who should be placed in Chicago (unless it ends up being Baylor).

I know that Chicago has a large ND alumni base, most likely much larger than Louisville. But, that doesn't mean those alumni are women's hoops fans and would attend the regional. Not sure how well Louisville fans would travel to Chicago. We'll find out in a couple of weeks if any of that are factors.

 

[Plebe]

If Notre Dame or Louisville does win the tourney, the picture might be clearer as to who should be placed in Chicago (unless it ends up being Baylor).

I know that Chicago has a large ND alumni base, most likely much larger than Louisville. But, that doesn't mean those alumni are women's hoops fans and would attend the regional. Not sure how well Louisville fans would travel to Chicago. We'll find out in a couple of weeks if any of that are factors.

Chicago will go to whichever of the two win the ACC tournament, period. If neither of them win it, it'll probably go to whichever of them did better. If they both lose in the semis, it will probably stay with Louisville.