Do You Agree With Charlie Creme? | Page 4 | The Boneyard

Do You Agree With Charlie Creme?

vowelguy said:
The RPI is an objective measure, but it is JUST ONE TOOL.
The overall process is of course arbitrary - it is done by a committee of humans.

You seem upset that the process is not 100% scientific or formula based. That has never been claimed, nor is it even possible. The committee evaluates numerous criteria (incl RPI) and does its best to come up with 64 teams, a 1-64 ranking, and a fair bracket.
Expand ...
I don't want it to be 100% formula based, there has to be a place for human insight. Otherwise, Notre Dame would be ranked over Louisville despite the repeated results on the floor. My issue is that every formula, every ranking, every poll, and pretty much everyone's "eye test" has Baylor in the top 4. Why shouldn't they be a 1 seed? If they evidence was split I wouldn't have a problem but all evidence outside of Charlie Creme points to the same thing. I still hold out hope that Creme will be just as surprised by the final bracket as he was in the first reveal.
 
Bear11 said:
My issue is that every formula, every ranking, every poll.
Expand ...

Yeah all the evidence ... other than all the posts that I and others have put into this thread, which you have conveniently ignored.

i'm done feeding the trolls. And bears. Goodbye.
 
vowelguy said:
Yeah all the evidence ... other than all the posts that I and others have put into this thread, which you have conveniently ignored.

i'm done feeding the trolls. And bears. Goodbye.
Expand ...
I'm sorry if you feel that presenting evidence to back up an argument is trolling. My point is valid. Show me a poll or metric that doesn't have Baylor in the top 4.
 
I want to see this pairing:

BU vs ND - Two short benches playing one another. Plus, they have a pretty good lengthy history of playing each other in the playoffs.
UT vs Miss St - UT has faced probably the better 6'7 player and is getting better with her. I think Atkins/Higgs on Vivians/Schafer and put McCarty on William ( I think UT could upset them)
Louisville vs Oregon Two star guards going head to head
UConn vs South Carolina I think they are playing better and could maybe challenge them more.

I picked this not based on schedules but what I think would be fun games to watch. Also I think all would be great matchups, maybe the UConn SC one not so much but I have to put both of them somewhere.
 
scubadog said:
While I understand your reasoning. SC has Wilson, a better player than anyone on Baylor, Texas or Oregon. Plus she is a senior and has a good supporting cast with championship experience. SC also has Dawn , probably a better coach also. SC is going to be a very tough out, and will not give up the title easily. People will think I'm crazy, but I don't want any part of them until the FF. After watching non stop wcbb since last week. I thought they along with Louisville performed the best.
Expand ...
Well, I don't really care how any team performs against others. I do care how specific teams perform against UConn, and SCar and Wilson have always had their troubles with UConn's style of play. That is the point.
 
JordyG said:
Well, I don't really care how any team performs against others. I do care how specific teams perform against UConn, and SCar and Wilson have always had their troubles with UConn's style of play. That is the point.
Expand ...
I understand, but like how they're playing now !
 
.-.
Bear11 said:
I'm sorry if you feel that presenting evidence to back up an argument is trolling. My point is valid. Show me a poll or metric that doesn't have Baylor in the top 4.
Expand ...


Well every single metric I made up has ND over Baylor. So you can't argue with facts.:rolleyes:
 
Orangutan said:
Strength of schedule, for starters.

We tried citing numbers on quality wins but that's apparently "arbitrary" despite me pulling it directly from the official NCAA selection sheets.
Expand ...
Strength of schedule is not in itself a ranking. It is a statistic, like average margin of victory or team shooting percentage. It is helpful but doesn't tell the whole story. Oklahoma played a top 3 schedule but they are a bubble team. This is one of the flaws of the RPI, that who you play is more important than how you play.
 
Bear11 said:
If it is really down to these 2, then theoretically they should be placed in the same regional so this would happen. Unfortunately, the NCAA will probably play for money and prevent this for geographic reasons. I'm afraid Baylor could end up with Mississippi State, putting 2 of the likely top 3 teams in one bracket and keeping one of them out of the final four.
Expand ...
Baylor making the FF that is a good one lmao!
 
.-.
Bear11 said:
Strength of schedule is not in itself a ranking. It is a statistic, like average margin of victory or team shooting percentage. It is helpful but doesn't tell the whole story. Oklahoma played a top 3 schedule but they are a bubble team. This is one of the flaws of the RPI, that who you play is more important than how you play.
Expand ...

The word you used was "metric" not "ranking". Of course, SoS doesn't tell the whole story. That is why it is only 1 of 16 listed criteria for selection.

The only "ranking" that is among the criteria is RPI, which is why we've been talking about it, and we've already gone around in circles in that. Sagarin, Massey, Coaches' Poll, AP.... all totally irrelevant.
 
Orangutan said:
The word you used was "metric" not "ranking". Of course, SoS doesn't tell the whole story. That is why it is only 1 of 16 listed criteria for selection.

The only "ranking" that is among the criteria is RPI, which is why we've been talking about it, and we've already gone around in circles in that. Sagarin, Massey, Coaches' Poll, AP.... all totally irrelevant.
Expand ...
I recognize the importance of the RPI in the eyes of the committee. It has Baylor at 4. By that, Baylor should be a top seed. I'm not sure who gets demoted, but if RPI is really what matters then someone has to move down.
 
vowelguy said:
With SoCars win, I think Tex is a clear #8 and they will want to give UConn the weakest 2.

Had SC lost, I think 7/8 would've been closer and it would've been no big deal to pair UConn with 7 SC and #2 Ms st with 8 Tex. But no more.

Thus UConn - Tex in albany
Expand ...

That's my thinking, too, though personally I love Upstate NY. SC fans would appreciate going to Lexington since the committee has loved sending us out west for 3 of the last 4 tournaments.
 
I think that Mercer should have the last #1 seed, they only have two losses. Make Notre Dame and Baylor both #2 seeds. That would shake things up and solve the problem between Notre Dame and Baylor.
 
Bear11 said:
If it is really down to these 2, then theoretically they should be placed in the same regional so this would happen. Unfortunately, the NCAA will probably play for money and prevent this for geographic reasons. I'm afraid Baylor could end up with Mississippi State, putting 2 of the likely top 3 teams in one bracket and keeping one of them out of the final four.
Expand ...
If Mulkey would play some good teams out of conference, we might know that, but she won't.
 
Bear11 said:
That's my point. If you use arbitrary cutoff points you can find a number for anything. The point of the RPI is to do the comparisons for you, so we don't have to make this sort of arbitrary comparison.

I have nothing against Notre Dame, you obviously have a great team. I just firmly believe that Baylor should be a 1 seed and Notre Dame seems the most likely to fall. I really just want some consistency from the committee.
Expand ...

The committee consistently discredits weak schedules, just ask the Terps.
 
.-.
cockhrnleghrn said:
The committee consistently discredits weak schedules, just ask the Terps.
Expand ...
The Maryland example is not valid here, as Baylor has a much more difficult schedule than last year's Maryland team. Maryland played something like 3 ranked teams, and lost to a not terribly strong Ohio State team. Interestingly, this year's Baylor team has a higher RPI and RPI SOS than last year. Last year's team was a 1 seed with no controversy, so I'm not sure what has changed.
 
vowelguy said:
With SoCars win, I think Tex is a clear #8 and they will want to give UConn the weakest 2.

Had SC lost, I think 7/8 would've been closer and it would've been no big deal to pair UConn with 7 SC and #2 Ms st with 8 Tex. But no more.

Thus UConn - Tex in albany
Expand ...
I love the Height of Texas and Mississippi State going at each other.
 
RegisteredUconn said:
Charlie vs. the AP
If brackets were assigned from the AP rankings using an "S-Curve" distribution, they would look as follows. As the AP Poll doesn't have enough teams to fill out full brackets, cells without associated AP teams are grayed out. It does give an idea how the top of each bracket would fall.

View attachment 29143
Expand ...
S Curve is out... Geographic locations play a big part of this...
 
01Neaggrad02 said:
S Curve is out... Geographic locations play a big part of this...
Expand ...
In truth, I wasn't arguing for the S-curve. For one thing, if two of the top five teams (according to the AP) are in the same conference, an S-curve could force them to meet prior to the Final Four. I would find it objectionable that two teams that had already met twice or maybe 3 times in the regular season and conference tournament met again in the same region. I'd think it more equitable that both have a shot at the championship game. After all, the AP Poll is a subjective measure. Maybe the teams are actually the two best squads in the country but one of them just got beat up by the other in pre-tourney play and was punished by the voters.

I was just offering what an S-curve based brackets might look like compared to Charlie's imagined selection committee's version of the brackets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,409
Messages
4,571,823
Members
10,477
Latest member
Goose91


Top Bottom