The Official Bracketology Thread | Page 3 | The Boneyard

The Official Bracketology Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vowelguy said:
What on earth are you talking about?
What matchups are they picking months in advance?
Expand ...

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.
 
Alydar said:
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.
Expand ...
what profit are you talking about? The tournament loses 2.5 million dollars.
 
Alydar said:
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.
Expand ...
What hair?
 
Alydar said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
EricLA said:
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!
Expand ...
Should be a rule that no conference member with less than .500 winning percentage in conference is eligible.
 
Zorro said:
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.
Expand ...
Personally i think he sucks at his job. He seems to favor some conferences and dislikes others.
 
Vowelguy said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
Vowelguy said:
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.
Expand ...

1, Did you miss Creme's October bracket? And I'm not sure but he may have put one out last April or May. I doubt he just told them who his employers wanted in the dance and against whom but that would be something to discuss with whomever writes the Pol & Pro. and whomever appoints the chairman of the selection committee.

2. I don't remember any fans attending these mock sessions. Have you read the latest "Policies and Procedures? If there is one thing I learned reading them was that they are so convoluted that I doubt any of the committee members could pass a test on them. The rules give the chairman lots of discretion and the ability to orchestrate the process.

3. No they weren't.


Yes there are a lot of conspiracies and it's a myth that they are all just the ravings of lunatics. Many of them are real and supported by lots of facts. Do you think that no one ever conspires? Or is it just those "evil doers" whop plot?

I love sports. I love watching and I love to root and boo. But I also realize that as soon as turnstiles are put up and money is collected they become businesses. And business people don't let things like fairness and honesty interfere with maximizing their profits. The media today are controlled by a few huge corporations that see wcbb as a revenue stream, just like the WWF or some reality show. They are all just entertainment to get people to watch the commercials.
 
MSGRET said:
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.
Expand ...

Yeah so?
CBS and ESPN also post football bowl projections in August. And mens basketball projections in October. Are these similar conspiratorial exercises? And which media member is the NCAA conspiring with - CBS? ESPN? Fox?

Do illuminate please.
 
I think that this year is a difficult year for the NCAA committee, as far as UCONN is concerned. Paige is THE REASON. Think about it. Sure, the team would put up a good showing with the present team(without her), but would you choose UCONN to win it all? I wouldn't, and I would also be wary of choosing them to be in the Final Four.
It will be interesting watching the team, with, or without her. Geno should make the final decision whether Paige should play or not. H should first consult with her parents, the doctors, the assistant coaches, and Paige herself.
 
Vowelguy said:
Yeah so?
CBS and ESPN also post football bowl projections in August. And mens basketball projections in October. Are these similar conspiratorial exercises? And which media member is the NCAA conspiring with - CBS? ESPN? Fox?

Do illuminate please.
Expand ...
Go back and look at my original post! I was answering your FIRST question, so get off your high horse about conspiratorial exercises. You asked a question I answered it, Period!
 
I don't know but I'd be surprised the NCAA is losing money after the TV rights even if the women's tournament were packaged separately. You have the gate and the TV revenue. They probably have prize money for the schools maybe, adding to the costs?
 
Vowelguy said:
Yeah so?
CBS and ESPN also post football bowl projections in August. And mens basketball projections in October. Are these similar conspiratorial exercises? And which media member is the NCAA conspiring with - CBS? ESPN? Fox?

Do illuminate please.
Expand ...

What they do is create benchmarks for the mass of people that don't follow the sport like we do.

Take Maryland. pre-season AP No 5. By week 5 they were 8-2. Two losses but still No 8. At week 10 they were 12-4. Two more losses but they stay at No 8. In the same 10 week period UConn lost 3 games and dropped from 2nd to 9th, behind 4 loss MD. It wasn't until MD lost games 5 & 6 that they slid down to 17th, and now, with 7 losses they are 13th. Losses don't hurt MD. Why? Some would say because they pass the eye test. Others would say that the media is going to vote for the top teams in the B1G, regardless of their record.
 
Alydar said:
What they do is create benchmarks for the mass of people that don't follow the sport like we do.

Take Maryland. pre-season AP No 5. By week 5 they were 8-2. Two losses but still No 8. At week 10 they were 12-4. Two more losses but they stay at No 8. In the same 10 week period UConn lost 3 games and dropped from 2nd to 9th, behind 4 loss MD. It wasn't until MD lost games 5 & 6 that they slid down to 17th, and now, with 7 losses they are 13th. Losses don't hurt MD. Why? Some would say because they pass the eye test. Others would say that the media is going to vote for the top teams in the B1G, regardless of their record.
Expand ...
I have no idea what the AP has to do with any of your original "argument." Particularly since the AP poll has nothing to do with picking the tourney teams or the NCAA committee rankings.

But if you just want to pull random unrelated items together and yell "bias!" or "conspiracy!" go right ahead.
 
Alydar said:
Take Maryland. pre-season AP No 5. By week 5 they were 8-2. Two losses but still No 8. At week 10 they were 12-4. Two more losses but they stay at No 8. In the same 10 week period UConn lost 3 games and dropped from 2nd to 9th, behind 4 loss MD. It wasn't until MD lost games 5 & 6 that they slid down to 17th, and now, with 7 losses they are 13th. Losses don't hurt MD. Why? Some would say because they pass the eye test. Others would say that the media is going to vote for the top teams in the B1G, regardless of their record.
Expand ...
Not sure how the AP poll relates to the original point, but Maryland's first two losses were to NC State and Stanford, and that was after they beat an AP top 10 team in Baylor. Maryland's next two losses were to South Carolina and Indiana.

UConn's schedule was nowhere near this difficult. UConn did not beat any top 10 teams in that part of the season and lost to a then-unranked team in GT, and it's generally to be expected that teams drop farther for losing to unranked teams as opposed to losing to top 5 or top 10 teams. I'm just not seeing the conspiracy here.
 
Last edited:
Plebe said:
Not sure how the AP poll relates to the original point, but Maryland's first two losses were to NC State and Stanford, and that was after they beat an AP top 10 team in Baylor. Maryland's next two losses were to South Carolina and Indiana.

UConn's schedule was nowhere near this difficult. UConn did not beat any top 10 teams in that part of the season and lost to a then-unranked team in GT, and it's generally to be expected that teams drop farther for losing to unranked teams as opposed to losing to top 5 or top 10 teams. I'm just not seeing the conspiracy here.
Expand ...
B10 has some good teams at the top, but from what Ive seen, way overrated. Many good teams are outside Power 5. Maybe they are not great, but Weaker power 5 teams somehow rewarded for losing to power 5 teams, even those with below .500 records in conference, which is absurd.
 
Alydar said:
A loss for the NCAA. Do you know if ESPN loses money? I'll wager not.
Expand ...
if Espn made so much money they would put the ntl title on ABC, a channel where everyone can access. They obviously don't think it's worth it.
 
darkstar1 said:
B10 has some good teams at the top, but from what Ive seen, way overrated. Many good teams are outside Power 5. Maybe they are not great, but Weaker power 5 teams somehow rewarded for losing to power 5 teams, even those with below .500 records in conference, which is absurd.
Expand ...
On the men's side, Xavier is 7-9 in the Big East and yet they're (deservedly IMO) projected as a 7 seed. Seton Hall, at 8-8, is projected as an 8 seed.

I'm not going to defend the mediocrity of some of the bubble teams on the women's side, but I don't buy into this arbitrary threshold of a .500 record in conference.
 
Last edited:
visitingcock said:
Should be a rule that no conference member with less than .500 winning percentage in conference is eligible.
Expand ...
Disagree. What if SC would have finished 7-9 for some reason in the SEC? That would be ridiculous to say SC should not make the tournament after evaluating what they did in the nonconference. Conference play is only part of the equation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
308
Guests online
5,630
Total visitors
5,938
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
163,993
Messages
4,377,838
Members
10,169
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom