Creme Bracketology 3/4 | Page 2 | The Boneyard

Creme Bracketology 3/4

He seems to have made a mistake in his scheme. He still has BYU as 9 seed in Chicago, but he doesn't have the West Coast Conference for 2 teams.
 
donalddoowop said:
Didn't they eliminate Baylor before when Baylor had the most talent?
Expand ...

Yep....I wouldn't say last year was a talented as this year, but the year before for freakin sure!

However, both times they had a good dynamic post player that was a Sr. This year's center is no Gulich.
 
Tonyc said:
Miss St is ranked 5th. UConn 2. No Miss St in Albany. Stanford Maryland or NC State in Albany Maryland would be a good draw .
Expand ...
Mississippi State will not be playing in Albany. Lets wait and see.
 
eebmg said:
He has TN in as the worst of the Last four in

Buffalo
Indiana
TCU
Tennessee

TN is in position for the Ms. Irrelevant Award ;)

Interesting, LSU is first of first 4 out so the TN/ LSU 8-9 matchup should decide it.
Expand ...


Please help me out here. If UT was one of the last four in how is it they are an 11 and not a 16?????????????? How in anyone's math do they get such a high seed???????????
 
Maine fan said:
Please help me out here. If UT was one of the last four in how is it they are an 11 and not a 16?????????????? How in anyone's math do they get such a high seed???????????
Expand ...

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.
 
vowelguy said:
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.
Expand ...
Thanks for the clarification. I should have been able to see that. Just not happy UT gets in at all. The only thing they have going for them is that they are UT.
 
.-.
Maine fan said:
Thanks for the clarification. I should have been able to see that. Just not happy UT gets in at all. The only thing they have going for them is that they are UT.
Expand ...

No not really.
The resumes of teams on the bubble in WCBB are notoriously thin. I dont know if I'd put them in, but they are easily in the mix given that they've done, relative to what others have done.
 
Plebe said:
A couple of spots on the projected bubble opened up because Missouri State and Miami of Ohio, after their respective losses dropped them from the top of the MVC and MAC conference standings, are no longer penciled in as presumptive auto bids. (Those auto bids are now projected to Drake and Central Michigan, who were already in the bracket regardless.) We now see that 3 of his projected 11-seeds are at-large teams, whereas before only one of them was.

It's never only about what one team did. What all the other teams did matters just as much.
Expand ...
It seems obvious to me what Creme has been doing. He has been using justifications like this to include certain teams and keep numbers up from specific conferences. Why should a couple of slots opening up automatically go to Tenn or the SEC?

I mentioned long ago when he reduced the Pac 12's numbers to 6 while increasing the SEC to 8 that he was cherry picking to set up a scenario to justify more teams from the SEC. The whole idea is to discern the strength of a conference before league play begins to get an objective view of what their games mean against each other. Except in a case like Tenn where they just do a complete nose dive. The Pac 12 and the ACC started with equal number of bids as dictated by their out of conference rankings as the strongest leagues. Well now the Pac 12 has equal number of bids to the formally considered weak Big 10, while the SEC has jumped them with 7. Did these leagues get stronger based on playing themselves?

When the teams in the Pac 12 started beating each other and acquiring losses he punished them far more them equally if not far more than the loses teams acquired playing in obviously weaker conferences. He certainly didn't replace the teams that lost in the Pac 12 with the better teams in the Pac 12, but instead chose to replace them with teams from weaker conferences that the teams he favored were in.

I remember that I wrote a post long ago in respect to a pattern he displaced geared to justifying his long term term agenda . It is akin to heating the water of a pot slowly so that the frog does not recognize he is being boiled and jump out to save himself. Fortunately Creme does not pick the actual brackets. Still he is given the job of doing so by ESPN and should come up with a far more objective product. He is being paid to do so by a major News outlet and more should be expected from him than someone just posting on a site. In that context the guy is a hack period.
 
Last edited:
Maine fan said:
Thanks for the clarification. I should have been able to see that. Just not happy UT gets in at all. The only thing they have going for them is that they are UT.
Expand ...
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.
 
willtalk said:
It seems obvious to me what Creme has been doing. He has been using justifications like this to include certain teams and keep numbers up from specific conferences. Why should a couple of slots opening up automatically go to Tenn or the SEC?
Expand ...
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?
 
Last edited:
.-.
willtalk said:
It seems obvious to me what Creme has been doing. He has been using justifications like this to include certain teams and keep numbers up from specific conferences.
Expand ...

Please, enlighten us of the evidence of this historically, and why he would be doing this.

And please explain why one of his previous brackets excluded Tenn. Did he have amnesia on his master plan that week?

His job is to predict what the committee will do. He has never said this is his personal opinion.
 
willtalk said:
It seems obvious to me what Creme has been doing. He has been using justifications like this to include certain teams and keep numbers up from specific conferences. Why should a couple of slots opening up automatically go to Tenn or the SEC?
Expand ...

I would take what Creme says with a grain of salt right now. This is all just his projections. His predictions haven't been exactly perfect over the years.

The SEC has been very weak this year compared to other years and actually have an overall low conference RPI, ranked 5th among all conferences, other years it usually was in the top 2 which is why you saw a lot more SEC teams. That said, some of the OOC performances and scheduling will be a big factor.

I think there are gonna be many who will be left out this year though.
 
vowelguy said:
No not really.
The resumes of teams on the bubble in WCBB are notoriously thin. I dont know if I'd put them in, but they are easily in the mix given that they've done, relative to what others have done.
Expand ...
Does an LSU win in SEC tournament knock Tennessee out?
 
There are alot of teams that have won 20 games that deserve to be in the NCAAs. Tenn has 11 losses. That in itself knocks them out.
 
Tonyc said:
There are alot of teams that have won 20 games that deserve to be in the NCAAs. Tenn has 11 losses. That in itself knocks them out.
Expand ...
There are at-large teams selected every year that have double-digit losses. Oklahoma last year got in with a 16-14 record. Arizona State at 21-12 was a #7 seed.
 
.-.
LoTrader said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
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?
 
.-.
Golden Husky said:
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?
Expand ...


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.
 
Golden Husky said:
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?
Expand ...

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 said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
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!
 
Plebe said:
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?
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,409
Messages
4,571,826
Members
10,477
Latest member
Goose91


Top Bottom