The Official Bracketology Thread

[MSGRET]

I agree 100%. I mentioned in another post - most of the bottom of the SEC - Alabama? aTm? both have like 9 or 10 losses in their own conference. Kentucky you mentioned. I'd add Mississippi State (15-11) - as well. IMHO SEC should have like 8 teams in, maybe, if you include Missouri.

None of those teams have above .500 in the conference, but moreover, they all have at least 10 losses. "But they were good losses"... YIKES!

No team should be allowed to play in the Tournament if they have a losing record in their conference, unless they win the conference tournament to get the AQ, period. I've always hated the experts that say things like well they played against so and so that's why they have a losing record in the conference. Isn't that the same with teams that play in conferences with the teams like UConn, Princeton, South Dakota State, or Dayton.

 

[FridaFriend]

I agree that 9 teams each from the ACC and the SEC is a bit much, especially given the records and the eye test for some of those teams. I also think that the Pac 12 gets shortchanged every year, both by Charlie and by the selection committee. And the Pac 12 teams have performed very well in the tournament in recent years.

 

[Plebe]

I also think that the Pac 12 gets shortchanged every year, both by Charlie and by the selection committee. And the Pac 12 teams have performed very well in the tournament in recent years.

Who are the Pac-12 teams that IYO got shortchanged in recent years? It's generally been very clear in recent years which P12 teams were tournament teams and which weren't (this year is a big departure from that trend). But I do remember one year (maybe 2017?) when Cal was a surprise inclusion despite a 6-12 conference record. By no means were they shortchanged by the committee that year when almost everyone thought they were headed to the WNIT.

 

[jdote33]

LOL that the picture for “last team in” Boston College doesn’t include a Boston College player.

View attachment 73611

That is actually Cameron Swartz. She's actually had a really strong senior season. I saw her in person a couple weeks ago when the ball was in her hands there was like a buzz in the crows. But your right in that those are not typical BC jerseys.

 

[ME Husky Fan]

Understand a lot could change between now and Selection Sunday, or whatever day they have it scheduled for, but I’m not buying Michigan, Iowa St and Arizona as 2 seeds.

 

[triaddukefan]

That is actually Cameron Swartz. She's actually had a really strong senior season. I saw her in person a couple weeks ago when the ball was in her hands there was like a buzz in the crows. But your right in that those are not typical BC jerseys.

I saw that ACC shoulder patch and figured it had to be BC

Understand a lot could change between now and Selection Sunday, or whatever day they have it scheduled for, but I’m not buying Michigan, Iowa St and Arizona as 2 seeds.

Why not Michigan and/or ISU?

 

[STLCardinal]

When they rank 2/3 of a conference's teams to begin the season it looks like the teams in that conference are playing a tougher schedule. It's made worse when a team like Kentucky is allowed to hang around as a rated team for as long as they did. I'll wait to see who is actually selected before commenting on the number of teams per conference. I just hope the committee actually watched some games because there is no way records against whoever can tell the proper story - especially this year.

 

[Zorro]

Anyone on this board could make as good a predictive bracket as Mr. Creme. He has been so wrong, so often as to simply have no credit.

 

[FridaFriend]

Who are the Pac-12 teams that IYO got shortchanged in recent years? It's generally been very clear in recent years which P12 teams were tournament teams and which weren't (this year is a big departure from that trend). But I do remember one year (maybe 2017?) when Cal was a surprise inclusion despite a 6-12 conference record. By no means were they shortchanged by the committee that year when almost everyone thought they were headed to the WNIT.

I looked over the tournament selections for 2018, 2019, and 2021 and you are right. I somehow thought the mid level Pac 12 teams were being excluded, but that was not the case. I did have a problem with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State in the 2018 tournament and Tennessee and Indiana in 2019, but neither would have been replaced by a PAC 12. I guess my west coast preferences were prejudicing my memory.

This year I actually would tend to prefer Oregon State, UCLA, and Arizona State to Mississippi State, Boston College, and Miami. And if truth be told, I would put Villanova in and take Missouri out.

 

[Vowelguy]

This is what happens when the bracket goes to 68 teams. You get more bad P5 teams in.

 

[triaddukefan]

This is what happens when the bracket goes to 68 teams. You get more bad P5 teams in.

At first I was against them expanding the field to 68, but during the past few weeks I've changed my tune.

 

[Vowelguy]

At first I was against them expanding the field to 68, but during the past few weeks I've changed my tune.

Hmm I wonder why that could be.

 

[Alydar]

Who are the Pac-12 teams that IYO got shortchanged in recent years? It's generally been very clear in recent years which P12 teams were tournament teams and which weren't (this year is a big departure from that trend). But I do remember one year (maybe 2017?) when Cal was a surprise inclusion despite a 6-12 conference record. By no means were they shortchanged by the committee that year when almost everyone thought they were headed to the WNIT.

My guess is that having a couple of advocates on the committee helps. And from reading the convoluted rules the committee operates under the chairman has a lot of influence.
Being a cynic by nature I look at ESPN and ask why the entity paying for the telecasting rights is allowed to pick the teams they want and the matchups they want months in advance? It kind of suggests that fair and balanced competition is not at the top of the committee's (nor ESPN's) list of goals.

 

[Vowelguy]

Being a cynic by nature I look at ESPN and ask why the entity paying for the telecasting rights is allowed to pick the teams they want and the matchups they want months in advance? I.

What on earth are you talking about?
What matchups are they picking months in advance?

 

[AgStatesman]

If it ain’t South Carolina or Stanford, we beat every.other team in the tournament by double digits. As. Long as we aren’t in their brackets we are in the FF.

 

[TeamFirst!]

If you look at the NCAA team statistics for division one, it appears that the winning team has already been preselected. It will take a Villanova vs Georgetown level upset ( Patrick Ewing vintage ) for South Carolina to lose this year according to the numbers. And the biggest reason is team defense and rebounding. They are near the top or at the top in lots of categories. We are near the top in shooting percentage and that's about it. Considering the level of competition South Carolina has played, they seem to be onto something. They appear to be the new paradigm going forward. Big, physical, fast teams which can rebound and defend:

NCAA College Women's Basketball DI current team Stats | NCAA.com

Discover the current NCAA Division I Women's Basketball leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.

www.ncaa.com

 

[MilfordHusky]

If you look at the NCAA team statistics for division one, it appears that the winning team has already been preselected. It will take a Villanova vs Georgetown level upset ( Patrick Ewing vintage ) for South Carolina to lose this year according to the numbers. And the biggest reason is team defense and rebounding. They are near the top or at the top in lots of categories. We are near the top in shooting percentage and that's about it. Considering the level of competition South Carolina has played, they seem to be onto something. They appear to be the new paradigm going forward. Big, physical, fast teams which can rebound and defend:

NCAA College Women's Basketball DI current team Stats | NCAA.com

Discover the current NCAA Division I Women's Basketball leaders in every stats category, as well as historic leaders.

www.ncaa.com

S.C. is very, very good, and Boston is a great player. But, when I watch them, the style of play reminds me of Tennessee under Pat. S.C. is NOT an elite offensive team. Their shooting is very pedestrian, but they rebound 45% of their misses and get another crack at the basket. If UConn, Stanford, or another solid team gets hot from outside, S.C. is vulnerable. Neutralizing S.C. on the boards--not an easy feat--is another way to beat them.

 

[ME Husky Fan]

I saw that ACC shoulder patch and figured it had to be BC



Why not Michigan and/or ISU?

Just not convinced the individual conferences really test them that much. Maybe I'll be surprised??

 

[Blond D.]

I also saw Baylor as the new 2 in our Region and got a little worried. I have since changed my position though. Pre Brown injury I believe MI started 4 seniors. That core group has been together awhile and they can be really tough on both sides of the ball when locked in. Baylor lost a menacing lock down defender in Richards and two hard nosed crafty seniors in DC and Moon. The current Baylor guards are all similar height....no one over 5'8 and not the defenders we saw last year. Now I understand anything can happen in a one in done situation but I actually agree that we match up more favorably with Baylor. Egbo also remains her worst enemy with fouls and sometimes letting her emotions get the best of her.

UCONN's Achilles heel has usually been short quick guards.

 

[fomalhaut]

Connecticut rankings
Massey -- 5th
NCAA NET -- 6th
Sonny Moore -- 6th
AP -- 7th
Coaches -- tied for 8th

That equals 3rd seed how??

 

[Alydar]

What on earth are you talking about?
What matchups are they picking months in advance?

This is a business for Disney. Anyone who thinks they are interested in anything but profit is being naive. They want control of the product. That's how businesses are run. There's no law to prevent it either.
Have you seen Creme's bracketology? Last year he admitted to talking with the committee during the season and actually attended a mock selection. Now I'm not saying he dictates but he frames the questions. Tennessee as a 1 seed? Yeah, that was a basketball decision and had nothing to do with Tenn's massive national following. And UConn gets attention, not because ESPN loves UConn but because their advertisers love UConn. Why do you think Capital One & Invesco are advertising if not for access to all the blue-haired wcbb fans.

 

[jchusky]

This is a business for Disney. Anyone who thinks they are interested in anything but profit is being naive. They want control of the product. That's how businesses are run. There's no law to prevent it either.
Have you seen Creme's bracketology? Last year he admitted to talking with the committee during the season and actually attended a mock selection. Now I'm not saying he dictates but he frames the questions. Tennessee as a 1 seed? Yeah, that was a basketball decision and had nothing to do with Tenn's massive national following. And UConn gets attention, not because ESPN loves UConn but because their advertisers love UConn. Why do you think Capital One & Invesco are advertising if not for access to all the blue-haired wcbb fans.

what profit are you talking about? The tournament loses 2.5 million dollars.

 

[Redux]

what profit are you talking about? The tournament loses 2.5 million dollars.

I don't think the kind of entities the post mentions: Disney, Capital One & Invesco, are losing money on the tournament.

 

[Skeets]

This is a business for Disney. Anyone who thinks they are interested in anything but profit is being naive. They want control of the product. That's how businesses are run. There's no law to prevent it either.
Have you seen Creme's bracketology? Last year he admitted to talking with the committee during the season and actually attended a mock selection. Now I'm not saying he dictates but he frames the questions. Tennessee as a 1 seed? Yeah, that was a basketball decision and had nothing to do with Tenn's massive national following. And UConn gets attention, not because ESPN loves UConn but because their advertisers love UConn. Why do you think Capital One & Invesco are advertising if not for access to all the blue-haired wcbb fans.

What hair?

 

[Vowelguy]

This is a business for Disney. Anyone who thinks they are interested in anything but profit is being naive. They want control of the product. That's how businesses are run. There's no law to prevent it either.
Have you seen Creme's bracketology? Last year he admitted to talking with the committee during the season and actually attended a mock selection. Now I'm not saying he dictates but he frames the questions. Tennessee as a 1 seed? Yeah, that was a basketball decision and had nothing to do with Tenn's massive national following. And UConn gets attention, not because ESPN loves UConn but because their advertisers love UConn. Why do you think Capital One & Invesco are advertising if not for access to all the blue-haired wcbb fans.

1) You said that ESPN picked matchups months in advance and still have offered no proof.
2) For many years BOTH the men's & women's committees have hosted mock bracketing sessions for key media members to increase transparency and so they can help fans better understand the process. Attendees have included media members from CBS, AP, and yes ESPN. The idea that this is evidence of collusion between ESPN & the women's committee is beyond laughable.
3) Tennessee absolutely deserved a #1 seed at the time.

There are always a billion conspiracy theories. Evidence is less plentiful.

 

[visitingcock]

I agree 100%. I mentioned in another post - most of the bottom of the SEC - Alabama? aTm? both have like 9 or 10 losses in their own conference. Kentucky you mentioned. I'd add Mississippi State (15-11) - as well. IMHO SEC should have like 8 teams in, maybe, if you include Missouri.

None of those teams have above .500 in the conference, but moreover, they all have at least 10 losses. "But they were good losses"... YIKES!

Should be a rule that no conference member with less than .500 winning percentage in conference is eligible.

 

[visitingcock]

Connecticut rankings
Massey -- 5th
NCAA NET -- 6th
Sonny Moore -- 6th
AP -- 7th
Coaches -- tied for 8th

That equals 3rd seed how??

Warren Nolan ELO: 8th

 

[SLY63]

If we win out (which I expect) and Paige returns for the BE tourney (which I hope), I think there is a good change for a 2 seed in Bridgeport

 

[tower1]

Anyone on this board could make as good a predictive bracket as Mr. Creme. He has been so wrong, so often as to simply have no credit.

Personally i think he sucks at his job. He seems to favor some conferences and dislikes others.

 

[MSGRET]

1) You said that ESPN picked matchups months in advance and still have offered no proof.
2) For many years BOTH the men's & women's committees have hosted mock bracketing sessions for key media members to increase transparency and so they can help fans better understand the process. Attendees have included media members from CBS, AP, and yes ESPN. The idea that this is evidence of collusion between ESPN & the women's committee is beyond laughable.
3) Tennessee absolutely deserved a #1 seed at the time.

There are always a billion conspiracy theories. Evidence is less plentiful.

Charlie published his first bracketology in early October with the title of "Too Early Bracketology" or something to that effect. If I remember correctly almost all of the teams from the SEC and ACC are still on his list.